Unfair dismissal claim thrown out after witness statements filed two days late
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against DPD Group UK Limited was dismissed after his solicitors filed witness statements two days late, breaching an unless order. The tribunal refused to reconsider.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was submitted on 30 December 2019.
- The claimant failed to comply with multiple tribunal orders for documents and witness statements.
- An unless order was made on 4 November 2020 requiring compliance by 25 November 2020.
- The claimant's solicitors provided witness statements two days late, on 27 November 2020.
- The claim was dismissed on 23 June 2021 for material non-compliance with the unless order.
- The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused on 27 January 2022.
Timeline
-
Events leading to dismissal
The events referred to in the ET1 took place between June and November 2019.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by DPD Group UK Limited.
-
Claim presented
The claimant submitted an unfair dismissal claim to the tribunal.
-
Case management orders
The tribunal made orders for documents and witness statements.
-
Unless order made
Employment Judge Dimbylow made an unless order requiring compliance by 25 November 2020, failing which the claim would be dismissed.
-
Witness statements provided
The claimant's solicitors provided witness statements two days late.
-
Claim dismissed
Employment Judge Beck dismissed the claim for material non-compliance with the unless order.
-
Application for reconsideration
The claimant applied for reconsideration of the dismissal.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Beck refused the application for reconsideration.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim should be dismissed for failing to comply with an unless order that required documents and witness statements by a specific deadline, and whether that decision should be reconsidered.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim in its entirety for material non-compliance with an unless order.
- The claimant had failed to comply with multiple earlier orders for documents and witness statements.
- An unless order was made on 4 November 2020, requiring compliance by 25 November 2020, failing which the claim would be automatically dismissed.
- The claimant's solicitors provided witness statements on 27 November 2020, two days late.
- The tribunal found this breach material and dismissed the claim on 23 June 2021.
- An application for reconsideration was refused on 27 January 2022 as there was no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed before reaching a hearing on the merits.
Lessons & takeaways
- Unless orders are serious: missing a deadline by even two days can result in your entire claim being struck out.
- If your solicitor misses a tribunal deadline, you may still be held responsible – the tribunal expects you to ensure compliance.
- Applying for reconsideration is unlikely to succeed if the breach was clear and you have no strong excuse for the delay.
- Keep copies of all tribunal orders and check deadlines carefully; ignorance of an order is not usually a valid excuse.
This case shows how a procedural slip can derail an entire unfair dismissal claim, even before the merits are considered. The former employee had been dismissed by DPD Group UK Limited and brought a claim to the employment tribunal. However, the claim was dismissed not because it lacked merit, but because his solicitors filed witness statements two days late.
What went wrong
The tribunal had made several orders requiring the claimant to provide documents and witness statements. After repeated failures to comply, an 'unless order' was issued on 4 November 2020, giving a final deadline of 25 November 2020. The order stated that if the claimant did not comply by that date, the claim would be automatically dismissed. The claimant's solicitors provided the witness statements on 27 November – two days late. The tribunal considered this a material breach and dismissed the claim on 23 June 2021.
Why the result matters
The case highlights the strict approach tribunals take to unless orders. Even a short delay can be fatal, especially where there have been previous failures to comply. The claimant's solicitors argued that they had not received the order until 27 November and that the breach was trivial, but the tribunal disagreed. The application for reconsideration was also refused, as the judge found no reasonable prospect of the decision being changed.
What could have been done differently
If the claimant's solicitors had filed the witness statements on time, or even applied for an extension before the deadline, the claim might have proceeded to a full hearing. The case serves as a reminder that tribunal deadlines must be treated with the utmost seriousness – and that the consequences of missing them can be severe.
Similar cases
Claims dismissed: what happens when you ignore tribunal orders
Two former employees had their unfair dismissal claims automatically struck out after failing to comply with an Unless Order. The tribunal refused reconsideration, and the claims were ultimately dismissed.
Four minutes late: tribunal sets aside strike-out after representative's failure
A former employee's claim was struck out after her witness statement arrived four minutes late. The tribunal set aside the strike-out, finding she was not at fault and a fair hearing remained possible.
Claim dismissed after failing to comply with unless order: a procedural lesson
An employment tribunal dismissed a former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Ltd after he failed to comply with an unless order by the specified date. The tribunal also refused relief from sanctions, finding it not in the interests of justice to reinstate the claim.
Former employee's claims struck out after failing to comply with tribunal order
The tribunal struck out all remaining claims brought by a former employee against London & Quadrant Housing Trust after she failed to provide required details, despite having dyslexia.