Claim struck out for failing to comply with unless orders: former employee ordered to pay £3,120 in costs
A former employee who failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not attend a preliminary hearing has been ordered to pay £3,120 in costs after his claim was automatically struck out.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders to prepare a hearing bundle and witness statement.
- The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 30 January 2023.
- The claimant's solicitor applied for an adjournment due to ill health and lack of claimant attendance.
- The respondent applied for costs thrown away due to the adjournment.
- The tribunal made unless orders requiring compliance by 13 February 2023, which were not met.
- The claim was automatically struck out on 14 February 2023 for non-compliance.
Timeline
-
Preliminary hearing
The claimant's solicitor applied for an adjournment due to ill health and the claimant's non-attendance. The adjournment was granted, and the respondent applied for costs. Unless orders were made requiring compliance by 13 February 2023.
-
Orders sent to parties
The written record of the preliminary hearing and the unless orders were sent to the claimant's solicitor by email.
-
Deadline for compliance
The claimant failed to comply with the unless orders by this date.
-
Claim struck out
The claim was automatically struck out due to non-compliance with the unless orders.
-
Costs judgment
Employment Judge Heap issued a judgment ordering the claimant to pay £3,120.00 in costs to the respondent.
The legal issue
Whether the former employee and/or his representative acted unreasonably in conducting proceedings, justifying a costs order under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The outcome
The tribunal ordered the former employee to pay £3,120 in costs to Asda Stores Limited.
The key reasons were:
- The former employee failed to comply with tribunal orders to prepare a hearing bundle and witness statement.
- He did not attend the preliminary hearing on 30 January 2023, and his solicitor applied for an adjournment due to ill health and the claimant's non-attendance.
- The tribunal made unless orders requiring compliance by 13 February 2023, which were not met, leading to automatic strike-out of the claim on 14 February 2023.
Compensation breakdown:
- Costs thrown away due to adjournment: £3,120.00
Lessons & takeaways
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders, especially unless orders, can result in your claim being struck out automatically.
- If you cannot attend a hearing, you must arrange for a representative to attend or seek an adjournment well in advance.
- Unreasonable conduct in proceedings, such as non-compliance and non-attendance, can lead to a costs order against you.
- Costs orders can be significant – here the former employee was ordered to pay over £3,000 for the respondent's wasted preparation and hearing time.
When non-compliance leads to strike-out and costs
This case shows the serious consequences of failing to follow tribunal orders. The former employee had brought a claim against Asda Stores Limited, but the case never reached a full hearing because he did not comply with basic procedural requirements.
The tribunal had ordered him to prepare a hearing bundle and a witness statement. He did neither. When the preliminary hearing came around, he did not attend. His solicitor applied for an adjournment, citing ill health and the claimant's absence. The tribunal had little choice but to grant the adjournment, but Asda's counsel immediately applied for the costs thrown away.
What the losing side could have done differently
The tribunal made 'unless orders' giving the former employee a final chance to comply by 13 February 2023. He still did not comply. The claim was automatically struck out the next day. The former employee also failed to respond to the costs application, despite the orders being sent to his solicitor by email.
Had he complied with the original orders, attended the hearing, or at least responded to the costs application, the outcome might have been different. The tribunal noted that there was 'no reason to suppose' the orders were not received, and took the lack of response as a conscious decision.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employment tribunals expect parties to take their obligations seriously. Non-compliance with orders, particularly unless orders, carries severe penalties – here, the entire claim was lost. Additionally, unreasonable conduct can lead to a costs order, which is relatively rare in employment tribunals but can be substantial. This case is a reminder that procedural compliance is not optional; it is a fundamental part of bringing or defending a claim.
Similar cases
Claim struck out after claimant stopped engaging with tribunal and employer
A former employee who submitted an unfair dismissal claim and then cut all contact has had his case struck out and been ordered to pay £723.80 in costs.
Claim struck out after former employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Pfizer was struck out after she repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders and requested a postponement 11 minutes before a 9-day hearing. She was also ordered to pay £1,200 in costs.
Claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust was struck out after he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not respond to correspondence. He was ordered to pay £187.50 in costs.
Claims struck out after housing officer failed to serve witness statement
A former housing officer's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to serve a witness statement, despite extensions and warnings. She was also ordered to pay £3,870 in costs.