Doctor's unfair dismissal claim struck out after flying to India despite refusal of postponement
An NHS trainee doctor who flew to India for his mother's surgery after a tribunal refused to postpone a 35-day hearing had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for unreasonable conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #unreasonable-conduct
- #postponement-refused
- #misleading-tribunal
- #delay
Key facts
- The claimant applied for postponement of a 35-day hearing due to his mother's cancer surgery in India.
- The postponement was refused on 27 September 2022.
- The claimant cancelled his barrister before the refusal and did not re-instruct counsel.
- The claimant flew to India on 21 October 2022 and did not attend the hearing.
- The tribunal found the claimant knew the surgery was delayed but did not disclose this at the September hearing.
- The claims were struck out for unreasonable conduct causing loss of the hearing slot.
Timeline
-
Postponement application
Claimant applied to postpone the 35-day hearing due to his mother's cancer diagnosis and surgery.
-
Postponement refused
Employment Judge Quill refused the postponement, finding the hearing could proceed with counsel.
-
Claimant left for India
Claimant flew to India, having cancelled his barrister and decided not to attend the hearing.
-
Further postponement request
Claimant's representative sought postponement citing delayed surgery and counsel unavailability.
-
Hearing due to start
The 35-day hearing was vacated due to claimant's non-attendance.
-
Strike-out hearing
Preliminary hearing to decide whether to strike out claims or relist.
-
Strike-out judgment
All claims struck out for unreasonable conduct.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's conduct in failing to disclose the true timing of his mother's surgery and deciding not to attend or instruct counsel was unreasonable, and whether strike out was proportionate.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all of the claimant's complaints against all respondents.
The key reason was that the claimant's conduct in the proceedings was unreasonable: he applied for postponement based on his mother's cancer surgery, but after refusal he cancelled his barrister, flew to India knowing the surgery was delayed, and did not attend the hearing or arrange alternative representation. The tribunal found he had misled the tribunal about the urgency.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If a tribunal refuses a postponement, you must still attend or arrange representation — unilaterally deciding not to participate can lead to strike out.
- Be fully transparent with the tribunal about the timing of any personal circumstances; failing to disclose that a surgery has been delayed can be seen as misleading.
- Cancelling your legal representative without having a replacement in place is a high-risk strategy that may be deemed unreasonable conduct.
- Strike out is a draconian power, but tribunals will use it where a party's actions make a fair hearing impossible or waste significant resources.
This case shows the serious consequences of failing to engage with tribunal proceedings after a postponement is refused. The claimant, an NHS trainee doctor, had a 35-day hearing listed for his unfair dismissal claim. He applied to postpone because his mother needed cancer surgery in India. The tribunal refused, noting the hearing could proceed with counsel. The claimant then cancelled his barrister, flew to India, and did not attend.
What went wrong
The tribunal found that the claimant knew his mother's surgery had been delayed but did not disclose this when the postponement was refused. He also did not re-instruct counsel or arrange alternative representation. By the time a further postponement request was made, the hearing slot had been lost. The judge concluded that the claimant's conduct — including misleading the tribunal about the urgency — was unreasonable and warranted strike out.
Why this matters
Employment tribunals have a duty to manage cases efficiently. While they are sympathetic to personal difficulties, parties cannot unilaterally decide to ignore a refusal of postponement. This case is a reminder that the tribunal expects full cooperation and transparency. If you are unable to attend, you must still instruct a representative or seek a further ruling — not simply walk away.
Similar cases
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.
Protected disclosure claim struck out: disclosure made after dismissal cannot save unfair dismissal case
A locum lawyer's claim for automatic unfair dismissal over alleged whistleblowing was struck out because the disclosure came months after his engagement ended. He was also ordered to pay £8,000 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Autistic employee's disability claim struck out after years of delay
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against Nuffield Health was struck out after he failed to actively pursue it for eight months, despite being given extra support due to his autism.