Did not attend and not represented For the v Respondent — 2022

On 24 August 2021 the tribunal had already rejected jurisdiction in respect of the complaints of unfair dismissal, age discrimination and sex discrimination. The claims that remained were for notice pay and holiday pay. The respondent then applied to strike out the remaining claims, or alternatively for a deposit order, relying on the claimant's failure to comply with case management orders and his lack of engagement with the proceedings.

The tribunal found that there had been wholesale non-compliance with its orders. It noted that the claimant had failed to particularise his claims, failed to provide an up-to-date postal address, and had not been contactable by telephone. It also accepted the respondent's position that the claimant had not engaged meaningfully with the tribunal process or the respondent's correspondence.

Applying rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, including rule 37(1)(d), and taking account of the overriding objective in rule 2, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was in default of the tribunal's rules and that the extent of that default was sizeable and significant. It also considered whether a lesser sanction would be appropriate, but concluded that strike out was the fair and appropriate remedy because the claim was not being actively pursued and allowing it to continue would risk unfairness and prejudice to the respondent. The judgment therefore ordered that the claim be struck out and no monetary remedy was awarded.