Claim dismissed Employment Tribunal · 30 June 2023

Office Manager's constructive dismissal claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders

A tribunal struck out an office manager's constructive dismissal claim against Astrea Academy Trust after she failed to provide additional information or a schedule of loss, and did not attend the hearing.

1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • Claimant started work as Office Manager on 1 October 2017.
  • Claimant resigned on 20 January 2023, effective 19 February 2023.
  • Claimant alleged bullying by head teacher and constructive dismissal.
  • Claimant failed to provide additional information and schedule of loss as ordered.
  • Claimant did not attend the hearing and did not respond to tribunal communications.
  • Tribunal found non-compliance intentional and contumelious.

Timeline

  1. Employment started

    Claimant began work as Office Manager at Intake Primary School.

  2. Resignation requested

    Claimant alleges head teacher asked for her resignation.

  3. Resignation submitted

    Claimant resigned with notice.

  4. Acas Early Conciliation started

    Acas Early Conciliation took place between 20 and 23 January 2023.

  5. Employment ended

    Claimant's employment formally ended.

  6. Claim form issued

    Claimant issued claim for unfair dismissal.

  7. Notice of claim sent

    Notice sent to respondent with standard case management directions.

  8. Schedule of loss deadline

    Claimant required to provide schedule of loss by this date; failed to comply.

  9. Order for additional information

    Employment Judge Lancaster ordered claimant to provide further particulars by 5 May 2023.

  10. Strike-out application

    Respondent applied to strike out claim due to non-compliance.

  11. Final order to respond

    Tribunal ordered claimant to reply by return; no response received.

  12. Hearing changed to in-person

    Hearing converted to in-person to consider strike-out application.

  13. Strike-out hearing and judgment

    Claimant did not attend; claim struck out for non-compliance and failure to pursue.

The outcome

The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety.

  • The claimant failed to provide additional information about alleged bullying by the head teacher, as ordered by Employment Judge Lancaster on 25 April 2023.
  • She also failed to provide a schedule of loss by the deadline of 21 April 2023.
  • Despite a final order on 22 May 2023 to respond, no reply was received, and she did not attend the strike-out hearing on 30 June 2023.
  • The tribunal found the non-compliance was intentional and contumelious, and that the claim was not being actively pursued.

No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.

Lessons & takeaways

  • If you bring a claim, you must comply with all tribunal orders and deadlines, or risk having your claim struck out.
  • Ignoring tribunal communications and failing to attend hearings will almost certainly result in your claim being dismissed.
  • Providing a schedule of loss and further particulars when ordered is essential to allow the respondent to defend the claim and the tribunal to manage the case.
  • If you are representing yourself, it is especially important to stay on top of deadlines and respond promptly to tribunal requests.

What this case shows

This case illustrates the serious consequences of failing to engage with the tribunal process. The claimant, an office manager with five years' service, alleged she was bullied by the head teacher and constructively dismissed. However, after issuing her claim, she failed to provide the additional information ordered by the tribunal, did not submit a schedule of loss, and stopped responding to communications. When the respondent applied to strike out the claim, the claimant did not attend the hearing.

What the respondent did differently

Astrea Academy Trust followed the correct procedures: they requested further particulars to understand the claim, applied for a strike-out when the claimant failed to comply, and attended the hearing with legal representation. The tribunal noted that the claimant had received all correspondence at her address and had not notified any change.

Why the result matters

This outcome reinforces that tribunals expect claimants to actively pursue their claims and comply with orders. Non-compliance that is intentional and contumelious—meaning deliberate and with disregard for the process—will lead to strike-out, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. For anyone considering an employment tribunal claim, this case is a reminder that the process requires active participation from start to finish.

Similar cases

Claim dismissed · Aug 2023

Claim struck out after former employee failed to comply with tribunal orders

A tribunal struck out a former employee's claims against Worker Bee UK Ltd after she failed to comply with multiple orders and did not actively pursue her case, making a fair hearing impossible.

strike-outnon-compliance-with-ordersfailure-to-pursue-claim
Claim dismissed · Dec 2023

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.

retire-and-returncomparatorstrike-out
Claim dismissed · Nov 2023

10-year employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders

A Media Sales Operator with 10 years' service had his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out after repeatedly failing to comply with tribunal directions. The tribunal awarded costs against him.

strike-outnon-compliance-with-ordersfailure-to-pursue
Claim dismissed · Nov 2023

Whistleblowing claim struck out: when the disclosure comes too late

Two warehouse operatives had their automatic unfair dismissal claims for whistleblowing struck out because the alleged breaches happened before they made their protected disclosure. The tribunal said the claims had no reasonable prospects of success.

whistleblowingconstructive-dismissalprotected-disclosure