Jodie Butler v Notus Support Services Ltd Heard: by Cloud Video Platform on 30 July 2026 — 2026

Jodie Butler's claim against Notus Support Services Ltd was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal described the brief claim as appearing to concern unpaid wages, but found that the period claimed and calculation were unclear. The claim form referred to 35 hours, while later communications referred to differing totals of up to 78 hours. At the hearing on 30 July 2026, Butler said she was claiming £968.50.

The tribunal found that Butler had not complied with any of its preparation orders of 2 February 2026. These required a calculation of the claim, supporting documents and witness statements to be exchanged and material to be sent to the tribunal before the hearing. Butler accepted receiving the letter containing the orders but said she had not read it. Despite repeated reminders of non-compliance, she had taken no steps to remedy it. There was no schedule of loss, document bundle or witness statements before the tribunal when the hearing began. During the hearing, she forwarded six earlier emails to the tribunal and the respondent, but no breakdown of the claimed hours was provided.

The tribunal found that Butler had a reasonable opportunity to oppose strike-out, having been on notice of the respondent's application since 17 March 2026 and having been invited to make oral submissions at the hearing. Applying the factors in Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage, the judge found that the non-compliance was significant and entirely Butler's responsibility. The respondent had been unable to prepare because the case it had to meet remained unclear. A fair hearing could not take place that day.

The judge considered a lesser sanction but concluded that adjourning and making further orders would delay the case by many months and cause significant prejudice to the respondent, which was no longer trading and had no employees. Applying the approach in Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd, the tribunal found that a fair trial was not possible within the allocated trial window. The claim was struck out without a decision on the unpaid wages allegation, and no monetary award was recorded.