Mr Daniel Perkins v Pimlico Plumbers Limited — 2026

Mr Daniel Perkins brought claims against Pimlico Plumbers for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages or non-payment of other payments, and direct disability discrimination. The hearing on 8 April 2026 had been listed to determine his employment status, but the respondent applied to strike out all claims under rule 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

The Tribunal found that Mr Perkins had failed to comply with its disclosure orders of 10 April and 14 August 2025. The outstanding disclosure concerned financial documents relevant to employment status, including bank statements, management accounts and tax returns. Despite correspondence, renewed applications and a warning from the Tribunal on 26 February 2026 that non-compliance might result in strike-out, the required disclosure and explanations had not been provided. The Tribunal therefore found the ground in rule 38(1)(c) established.

The Tribunal found that the claimant's failure to provide explanations earlier had caused unnecessary work and costs and significantly wasted Tribunal time, making his conduct unreasonable for the purposes of rule 38(1)(b). It also found that the lack of disclosure and engagement had significantly compromised the respondent's ability to prepare for and answer any assertions made by the claimant, establishing the ground in rule 38(1)(e).

Mr Perkins attended remotely from Barcelona. The Tribunal accepted that his reason for being there—accompanying his son to an important national football tournament—was entirely legitimate, but found that his absence from the jurisdiction meant he could not give evidence or be cross-examined and created further unfairness if the employment-status hearing proceeded.

Applying Arrow Nominees v Blackledge and Bolch v Chipman, the Tribunal found that the fairness of the listed hearing had been frustrated and considered whether strike-out was proportionate or whether another disposal was available. Given the history of non-compliance, the prior warning and the absence of reason to believe that a postponement would remedy the failures, it concluded that no proportionate alternative was available. All three claims were struck out in their entirety without a determination on their merits, and no monetary remedy was awarded or recorded.