Mr Michael Keenan v National Wealth Fund Limited — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Mr Michael Keenan's application to strike out National Wealth Fund Limited's response or, alternatively, make an unless order. His application of 15 February 2026 relied on missed deadlines for witness statements and the hearing bundle. He also objected to the respondent's decision not to call seven other employees as witnesses. Under rule 38, the tribunal considered whether a ground for strike out was established and whether striking out would be a proportionate response.

The respondent served witness statements on 2 February 2026, one week after the deadline. The final electronic bundle was sent on 21 January and the hard copy on 10 February. The tribunal found that detailed exchanges about the bundle explained the preparation difficulties and that there was no evidence the missed deadlines were intended to obstruct proceedings or inconvenience the claimant. The failures did not amount to unreasonable conduct under rule 38 or make a fair hearing impossible. The claimant had confirmed he was ready for the hearing despite the late statements, had substantial documentation beforehand and did not want or need the extra preparation time offered during the hearing.

The tribunal explained that each party decides which witnesses to call and that it could not compel the respondent to call particular employees. The claimant could question the eight witnesses being called, rely on disclosed documents and invite adverse inferences from absent witnesses if the evidence justified them. He raised the possibility of witness orders, but had not previously applied for them and consistently opposed delaying the case. The tribunal held that the alternative unless-order application became irrelevant because it could not compel a party to call a witness.

The tribunal also refused an outstanding request for further whistleblowing investigation meeting notes. Notes from Mr Knott's first investigation had been disclosed. The second and third investigations concerned complaints made after dismissal and were not relevant to the issues identified for determination; further disclosure was unnecessary. The claimant could question Mr Knott about relevant matters and accepted that as a reasonable solution. This decision records that judgment on all substantive claims was given on 3 March 2026 with oral reasons, but does not state those outcomes or record any monetary award.