In person For the v Respondent — 2021

At a public video hearing on 28 October 2021, the respondent applied to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (d) because the claimant had not complied with case management orders made on 26 May 2021. The claimant had not served a schedule of loss by 7 July, had not provided document disclosure, had not helped prepare the bundle, and had not exchanged witness statements. He had told the respondent he was seeking losses of £50,000 without a breakdown. During the hearing he also said that he had done intermittent work since leaving employment and had started a new job around August, which had not previously been disclosed to the respondent.

Employment Judge Quill cited De Keyser Limited v Wilson, Blockbuster Entertainment v James, Bolch v Chipman and Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage. The judge rejected the submission under Rule 37(1)(d) that the case had not been actively pursued. Although the claimant had no good excuse for the failures and had not complied with the orders, the judge held that strike out would be too draconian because a fair hearing was still possible, albeit likely not for at least 12 months. The application was refused and the matter was left to proceed on a revised timetable.