Mr Robin Collingridge v Toma Business Enterprises Limited — 2024

Mr Robin Collingridge brought claims by claim form dated 2 February 2018 for constructive unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of wages against Toma Business Enterprises Limited. The claims were stayed in 2019 after the Claimant became bankrupt, and Judge Din later held that the employment claim vested in the Trustee in Bankruptcy and ordered the Claimant to notify the Trustee and provide the Tribunal with the Trustee's contact details. The Claimant later said he had sent the order to Sally Critchley of RSM UK Creditor Solutions LLP, but there was no response from the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

At the strike-out hearing on 14 August 2024, the Claimant did not attend. The Employment Judge proceeded after considering an email about bilateral anterior uveitis and an expired fit note, concluding that the evidence did not explain why the Claimant could not observe the video hearing and that it was in accordance with the overriding objective to proceed. The Respondent argued that the Trustee in Bankruptcy had not actively pursued the claims and that the delay was attributable to the Trustee's failure to engage after being put on notice of Judge Din's order.

The tribunal held that the Trustee in Bankruptcy had been aware of its responsibilities, had a choice whether to engage, and had not responded to the Tribunal or the Respondent. It found intentional delay and, in the alternative, inordinate and inexcusable delay under Rule 37. Applying the principles in Birkett v James and referring to Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd, the tribunal concluded that the passage of time, the lack of progress since 2018, and the likely prejudice to the Respondent meant that a fair hearing was no longer possible. It therefore struck out all claims under Rule 37(1)(d) and, in the alternative, Rule 37(1)(e).