Former NHS employees' claims struck out after repeated failure to comply with tribunal orders
Two former employees of Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust had their unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out after repeatedly failing to provide details of their case, despite multiple extensions and a warning.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #non-compliance
- #homelessness
- #ill-health
- #delay
Key facts
- The claimants presented claims on 8 October 2020 and 14 October 2020.
- The tribunal ordered the claimants to provide a summary of their claims by 7 June 2022.
- The claimants failed to comply with the order despite multiple extensions.
- The claimants were made homeless on 25 May 2022 but did not comply with the order.
- The respondent could not preserve witness evidence due to lack of particulars.
- A fair hearing was no longer possible due to the delay and non-compliance.
Timeline
-
C1 last worked
Carlos Campota last worked for the respondent due to ill health.
-
C2 last worked
Miss Madureira last worked for the respondent due to ill health.
-
C1 dismissed
Carlos Campota was dismissed.
-
C2 dismissed
Miss Madureira was dismissed.
-
C1 claim presented
Carlos Campota presented his claim to the tribunal.
-
C2 claim presented
Miss Madureira presented her claim to the tribunal.
-
Respondent's response
The respondent filed its response, noting lack of particulars.
-
Preliminary hearing and order
The tribunal ordered the claimants to provide a summary of claims by 7 June 2022.
-
Claimants homeless
Both claimants became homeless.
-
Strike out warning deadline
Claimants failed to respond to strike out warning by deadline.
-
Initial strike out judgment
Employment Judge Wright struck out the claims.
-
Final hearing and strike out
After reconsideration, the claims were struck out again.
The legal issue
Whether the claims should be struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claims, making a fair hearing impossible.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out both claims. The key reasons were:
- The claimants failed to comply with an order to provide a summary of their claims by 7 June 2022, despite multiple extensions.
- They became homeless on 25 May 2022 but did not notify the tribunal or request further time until after the deadline.
- The respondent could not preserve witness evidence due to the lack of particulars, and a fair hearing was no longer possible.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have difficulty complying with a tribunal order, tell the tribunal immediately and request an extension — don't wait until after the deadline.
- Tribunals expect claimants to actively pursue their claims; prolonged inaction or non-compliance can lead to strike-out even if you have personal difficulties.
- Providing clear particulars of your claim early on is essential — the respondent needs to know the case against them, and the tribunal needs to be able to manage the case fairly.
- Homelessness or ill health may be considered by the tribunal, but you must still communicate with the tribunal and comply with orders as far as possible.
When personal hardship meets procedural requirements
Two former employees of Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination after they were dismissed in 2020 due to ill health. However, their claims never progressed beyond the initial stage because they failed to provide basic details of what they were alleging.
The tribunal had ordered them to provide a summary of their claims by June 2022, setting out each legal claim, what the trust did wrong, and why it amounted to discrimination or unfair dismissal. Despite being given extra time, the claimants did not comply. They became homeless shortly before the deadline but did not inform the tribunal until after it had passed.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimants could have avoided strike-out by communicating with the tribunal about their difficulties. A simple request for an extension before the deadline, explaining their homelessness, might have been granted. Instead, they remained silent until the respondent applied for an Unless Order, and even then only responded at the last minute without providing the required information.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals expect claimants to actively pursue their cases and comply with orders. While personal hardships like homelessness or ill health are taken seriously, they do not excuse a complete failure to engage with the process. Claimants who find themselves in difficulty should seek help — from a solicitor, Citizens Advice, or the tribunal itself — rather than letting the case drift. Once a fair hearing becomes impossible due to delay and lack of particulars, strike-out is almost inevitable.
Similar cases
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
Constructive dismissal claim struck out after repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders
A communications manager who brought claims of discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal against The Alan Turing Institute had her case struck out after failing to comply with multiple tribunal orders over a year. The tribunal found a fair hearing was no longer possible.
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.