Senior Lecturer's claim struck out after failing to attend preliminary hearing
A tribunal struck out a Senior Lecturer's unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with orders to explain his absence. His application to reconsider was refused.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Lecturer by Teesside University.
- He presented a claim for unfair dismissal and race discrimination in January 2023.
- The claim was accepted after correction of the respondent's name.
- A preliminary hearing was scheduled for 4 May 2023, which neither the claimant nor his union representative attended.
- The claimant failed to comply with an order to explain his representative's non-attendance.
- The claim was struck out on 23 June 2023 for non-compliance and lack of prosecution.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim form for unfair dismissal and race discrimination, providing his union representative's details.
-
Claimant requested amendment
The claimant wrote to the Tribunal asking to amend the respondent's name to match the ACAS certificate.
-
Reconsideration accepted
The Tribunal accepted the application for reconsideration of the rejection.
-
Claim accepted and hearing listed
The Tribunal accepted the claim and listed a preliminary hearing for 4 May 2023.
-
Hearing time postponed
The Tribunal postponed the hearing time to 2pm and asked the claimant's representative to confirm receipt.
-
Preliminary hearing unattended
Neither the claimant nor his representative attended the preliminary hearing.
-
Order to explain non-attendance
Employment Judge Morris ordered the claimant and his representative to explain the non-attendance.
-
Union representative responded
The union representative wrote to the Tribunal stating the claimant had not engaged with the union and suggesting a new hearing.
-
Respondent applied to strike out
The respondent applied to strike out the claim for lack of prosecution.
-
Strike out warning sent
The Tribunal sent a strike out warning to the claimant, giving him until 22 June to respond.
-
Claim struck out
Employment Judge Jeram struck out the claim for non-compliance and lack of prosecution.
-
Claimant applied for reconsideration
The claimant emailed the Tribunal, which was treated as an application for reconsideration.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Jeram confirmed the strike out judgment, refusing to reconsider.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it was in the interests of justice to reconsider a strike out judgment, given that the claimant failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with an order to explain his non-attendance.
The outcome
The tribunal confirmed the strike out of the claim and refused to reconsider.
- The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and did not respond to the order to explain his absence.
- The union representative stated the claimant had not engaged with the union.
- The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused because he had not provided a good reason for his failures and had not acted promptly.
Lessons & takeaways
- Attend all tribunal hearings, even if your representative cannot be there — the tribunal expects you to attend personally.
- Respond promptly to tribunal orders and correspondence, or risk having your claim struck out.
- If you rely on a union representative, make sure they are actively engaged and keep you informed of all communications.
- An application for reconsideration must be made promptly and must show a good reason for the original failure.
What this case shows
This case is a cautionary tale about the importance of engaging with the tribunal process. The claimant, a Senior Lecturer, brought claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination against Teesside University. However, he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with an order to explain his absence. His union representative said the claimant had not responded to multiple requests for information, and the tribunal eventually struck out the claim.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have attended the hearing even if his representative could not. He also could have responded to the tribunal's order explaining his non-attendance. By failing to do so, he gave the tribunal no choice but to strike out the claim. Even after the strike out, his application for reconsideration was too late and did not provide a good reason for his failures.
Why this matters
This case shows that tribunals will not tolerate non-compliance with orders or failure to attend hearings. Claimants must take an active role in their case, even if they have a representative. The decision also confirms that reconsideration is not a way to get a second chance without a good reason.
Similar cases
Claims struck out after employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's claims for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and age discrimination have been struck out after repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders and participate in hearings.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
Former employee's claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Navaratna South Indian Restaurant Ltd. was struck out after she failed to attend a hearing and did not comply with case management orders. No compensation was awarded.
Claim struck out after claimant and his son failed to attend hearings
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he and his son repeatedly failed to attend hearings and did not comply with tribunal directions.