Constructive dismissal claim struck out after employee failed to pursue case
A playgroup employee's constructive dismissal claim was struck out after she failed to respond to a strike-out warning, ending a case that had already been delayed by a police investigation.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #disability-discrimination
- #time-limits
- #strike-out
- #police-investigation
- #illegality
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by a playgroup that closed in December 2017 after the committee resigned.
- The claimant's last payment was on 1 December 2017, and her employment ended on 4 January 2018.
- She submitted her claim one day late on 10 April 2018, but the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to submit in time.
- The claimant had leukaemia, accepted as a disability, but her disability discrimination claims were struck out for lack of merit and non-compliance.
- The respondent alleged the claimant misappropriated funds, leading to a police investigation and a stay of proceedings.
- The claim was struck out in 2023 for not being actively pursued after the claimant failed to respond to a strike-out warning.
Timeline
-
Pay reduction meeting
The claimant's pay and hours were reduced at a meeting she found offensive.
-
Committee resigns
All committee members of the playgroup resigned.
-
Playgroup closes
The playgroup closed on the last day of the Christmas term.
-
Employment ends
The latest date the claimant could have been employed, as agreed by parties.
-
Redundancy Payments Office reply
The RPO informed the claimant her employer was not insolvent, so no payment.
-
Early conciliation started
The claimant contacted ACAS after receiving free legal advice.
-
Early conciliation certificate issued
ACAS issued the certificate, giving the claimant until 9 April to submit her claim.
-
Claim submitted
The claimant submitted her claim one day late.
-
Preliminary hearing (Siddall)
EJ Siddall allowed unfair dismissal and other claims to proceed but struck out disability discrimination.
-
Preliminary hearing (Truscott QC)
EJ Truscott QC granted amendment to response, stayed proceedings pending police investigation.
-
Strike out judgment
EJ Taylor struck out the claim for not being actively pursued.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the claim for not being actively pursued, after the employee failed to respond to a strike-out warning and had not progressed the case for several years.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the entire claim for non-pursuit. The employee had not responded to a strike-out warning or taken any steps to advance her case since a preliminary hearing in 2020. The tribunal found no good reason for the delay and concluded that the claim should be struck out.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring an employment tribunal claim, you must actively pursue it — failing to respond to tribunal orders or warnings can lead to strike-out.
- Delays caused by police investigations or other external factors may pause proceedings, but you still need to keep the tribunal informed and ready to proceed when the stay is lifted.
- Seeking legal advice early can help you understand time limits and procedural requirements, but ultimately you are responsible for progressing your own case.
- A claim that is not actively pursued for years, especially after a strike-out warning, is very likely to be struck out regardless of its original merits.
This case shows how a claim that initially survived a time-limit challenge and a police investigation can still collapse if the claimant does not stay engaged. The playgroup employee alleged constructive dismissal after the playgroup closed and the committee resigned. Her claim was submitted one day late, but the tribunal accepted that it was not reasonably practicable to file on time, allowing it to proceed.
However, the case then stalled. A police investigation into alleged misappropriation of funds led to a stay of proceedings in 2020. When the respondent sought to lift the stay in 2023, the tribunal issued a strike-out warning. The employee did not respond, and the tribunal struck out the claim for non-pursuit. The judgment notes that the employee had not provided any explanation for her silence.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employee could have responded to the strike-out warning, even briefly, to explain any difficulties she faced. If she had lost interest or felt the case was hopeless, she could have withdrawn voluntarily rather than letting it be struck out. Keeping in touch with the tribunal, even during a stay, would have shown she was still committed to pursuing her claim.
Why this matters
Employment tribunals expect claimants to take reasonable steps to progress their cases. A stay does not mean the claim is frozen forever — the claimant must be ready to move forward when the stay ends. Ignoring tribunal communications, especially a strike-out warning, is almost always fatal. This case is a reminder that procedural engagement is just as important as the merits of your claim.
Similar cases
Lorry driver with 18 days' service: unfair dismissal struck out but discrimination claims survive
A lorry driver who resigned after 18 days and later worked as an agency driver was unable to claim unfair dismissal due to short service, but his disability and race discrimination claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Retire-and-return scheme leads to constructive dismissal claim, but breach of contract and age discrimination claims struck out
A consultant clinical scientist with 23 years' service resigned after a 'retire and return' scheme reduced her role. The tribunal struck out her breach of contract and age discrimination claims, but allowed her unfair dismissal claim to proceed.
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
20-year lunchtime supervisor loses constructive dismissal claim filed too late
A lunchtime supervisor with 20 years' service resigned claiming constructive dismissal but filed her claim 117 days late. The tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and struck out discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospect of success.