Ms L Watson v The Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police — 2026

The Tribunal struck out all of Ms Watson's claims under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It did not determine the substantive merits of the underlying discrimination, public interest disclosure or unlawful deduction claims, and it recorded no monetary remedy. Ms Watson confirmed at the hearing that she was no longer pursuing her application to strike out the respondent's response.

The Tribunal found that Ms Watson had deliberately and persistently conducted the proceedings unreasonably and that her non-compliance with disclosure orders was substantial and her responsibility. Orders made in April and August 2025 required simultaneous disclosure, but she maintained that she could defer her disclosure until after reviewing the respondent's material. The Tribunal rejected her contention that the respondent's disclosure or lack of access to her former email inbox had prevented compliance. It also found that her February 2026 confirmation that her disclosure was complete was inconsistent with her later description of it as partial or initial disclosure.

The Tribunal concluded that a fair hearing was impossible within the trial window of 20 to 29 April 2026. Ms Watson had still not supplied the required disclosure list, no hearing bundle had been agreed, witness statements had not been exchanged, and she had not prepared her witness statement. Her answers at the hearing led the Tribunal to conclude that she understood her disclosure obligations but had chosen not to comply with them.

Strike-out was found to be proportionate because earlier directions and deadlines had been ineffective, the Tribunal had no confidence that a further disclosure order would be obeyed, and it could identify no lesser alternative. It considered the lengthy delay that relisting would cause, the effect on witnesses' recollections, additional costs and lack of finality for the respondent, and the effect of an eight-day relisted hearing on other Tribunal users.

The Tribunal acknowledged the public interest in discrimination claims being determined on their merits and the authorities stating that strike-out of such claims should be rare. Taking all circumstances into account, it nevertheless concluded that there was no longer any prospect of a fair hearing and exercised its discretion to strike out the claims.