Mr Jasper Goodheart v Sunrise Records and Entertainment Limited — 2025

This judgment concerned only the Claimant's application to strike out the Respondent's response under Rule 38, not the underlying merits of the employment claims. The Claimant relied on repeated disclosure failures, alleged misuse of the DSAR process as a proxy for litigation disclosure, and what he said was a pattern of obstructive conduct. The Tribunal approached strike out as a draconian remedy requiring proportionality, and it referred to the overriding objective, Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust, and the distinction between deliberate or prejudicial non-compliance and technical or manageable breaches.

The Tribunal reviewed the disclosure chronology in detail. It recorded that the original disclosure deadline of 16 September 2024 was missed by both parties, that the parties then agreed an extension to 24 January 2025, that the Respondent's disclosure followed on the next working day after the Claimant's own disclosure, and that further specific disclosure issues then arose around a video, internal emails, payroll records, and WhatsApp material. It accepted that the Respondent had chosen to combine the DSAR exercise with disclosure and that the resulting documents were redacted in a way that was appropriate for DSAR purposes but not ideal for litigation disclosure.

The Tribunal held that the criticism of the redactions and of the Respondent's handling of the DSAR process was well-founded, but it was not enough to justify striking out the defence. It found that the late compliance, the use of DSAR material, and the need for specific disclosure did not show a pattern of non-compliance that threatened the fairness of the hearing or an attempt to game disclosure. The Tribunal also noted that the case had already lost its original fixture and would need to be relisted in 2026, but it concluded that strike out was not a proportionate response. The application failed.