Case 3316456/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Knight v British Airways plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 3316456/2021
- Decision date
- 11 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Knight
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(a), (b), (c) and (e), following the claimant's request for a seven day extension to comply with a case management order requiring dates for events in the list of issues. The claimant provided the further document on 30 November 2022, seven days after the original deadline.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success, or that the claimant's conduct amounted to unreasonable behaviour. Although there had been a breach of the case management order, the Tribunal accepted that the delay had been explained by the claimant's illness and postal strikes, and found that the necessary information had since been provided.
The Tribunal found nothing to suggest that a fair trial was no longer possible, that the respondent had been unduly prejudiced, or that the delayed compliance had affected the evidence. It concluded that strike out would be disproportionate and refused the respondent's application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determined the respondent's Rule 37 strike out application, which was refused. It did not determine the substantive claims on their merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(e) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- conduct extending over a period
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.