Enrique Pastene Munizaga v Not present Nahid Akram and Sohail Akram — 2022

Carlos Enrique Pastene Munizaga brought complaints of sexual orientation discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, failure to provide weekly rest and unlawful deduction from wages. The reasons also record that a complaint of unfair dismissal had previously been the subject of an unless order. The respondent applied to strike out the claim, and the tribunal dealt with that application in chambers on 22 September 2022 without attendance by the parties.

The tribunal traced repeated case management orders requiring the claimant to provide further particulars of his complaints, a written statement of remedy, an explanation of the relevance of each witness, and confirmation that documents had been exchanged and witness statements were ready for exchange. It found that those orders were not complied with, that reminders and warnings had been issued, and that the non-compliance had already caused postponement of the final hearing.

Applying Rule 37(1) and the strike-out authorities it cited, the tribunal held that the claimant had repeatedly failed to comply with orders and had not actively pursued the claim. It found the default serious, concluded that the claimant had offered no sufficient explanation, and said the conduct amounted to intentional and disrespectful default rather than oversight or neglect. The tribunal also refused the claimant's further postponement request and held that there was no less punitive response available.

The final judgment struck out the claim in its entirety on grounds of failure to comply with Tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue it. The reasons section separately states that the unfair dismissal complaint had already been dismissed on 22 July 2022 after the claimant failed to comply with an unless order. No monetary award was made.