In person For the v H Smith (solicitor) — 2025

The respondent applied to strike out C Willsher's claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, relying on non-compliance with the order of 5 June 2025 and saying the claim was not being actively pursued. The background included earlier orders of 14 November 2024, a postponed hearing in January 2025, an extension granted in February 2025, and the 5 June 2025 order requiring the claimant to provide medical evidence of her ill health over the preceding five months and a prognosis by 29 August 2025.

The claimant had not complied by the deadline, but she later explained that she had surgery on 1 August 2025 which had complications, that she had needed strong painkillers for a number of weeks, and that she had also been dealing with PTSD and safeguarding issues around her child. She told the tribunal that she had misunderstood her September correspondence with the respondent, had since found a solicitor, and was in a much better state of mind than at the hearing in June.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had incurred costs through three preliminary hearings and substantial correspondence, but it found that the claimant had actively pursued the claim to the best of her ability. It also found that she was in an improved state of mind, had taken the positive step of obtaining legal representation, and had provided an explanation for her earlier non-compliance. Although no clinical prognosis had been provided, the tribunal considered that strike out was not appropriate at that stage and refused the application.