Melissa Creighton v Ivy Learning Trust — 2025

The judgment concerned the Claimant's application to strike out the Respondent's response under Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that it was said to be scandalous, vexatious, or to have no reasonable prospect of success. The Claimant argued that the Respondent's Grounds of Resistance dated 2 October 2024 did not provide a substantive response to the claims, despite the grievance process having concluded on 9 October 2024, and said that the lack of an amended response caused prejudice and delay.

The Respondent opposed the application, explaining that when its original response was filed the Claimant's internal grievance appeal was still ongoing. It said the response had been filed on a protective basis pending completion of that process, and that it had undertaken to provide a full factual and legal response once the appeal concluded. The Respondent also relied on the fact that the Claimant had applied to amend the claim to add matters relating to a disciplinary investigation, and that it was appropriate to await the conclusion of that process before filing a comprehensive response.

The Tribunal refused the strike-out application. It accepted that the Respondent's initial protective approach was reasonable and transparent in the circumstances, noted that a full amended response had since been filed on 6 February 2025 in compliance with the Tribunal's case management order, and found that there was no ongoing failure to engage with the proceedings. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant had not shown prejudice from the Respondent's initial approach, particularly given the Claimant's own amendment applications.

In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal said the strike-out test under Rule 38(1)(a) is a high one and that, in light of the amended response, it could not be said that the Respondent's case was without merit or incapable of being properly defended. It also relied on the overriding objective in Rule 3, holding that strike out at that stage would be a disproportionate sanction and that the case should proceed to a full hearing on the merits.