18-year nursing assistant's unfair dismissal claim struck out for non-compliance
A tribunal struck out an unfair dismissal claim by a nursing assistant with 18 years' service after she failed to comply with orders, including providing a witness statement. No compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-sickness
- #occupational-health
- #medical-redeployment
- #failure-to-comply-with-orders
- #strike-out
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Nursing Assistant from 6 October 2003 until 21 December 2021.
- The claimant had a neurological condition causing seizures and was absent from work from October 2017.
- The respondent attempted to redeploy the claimant but no suitable role was found.
- The claimant was dismissed on grounds of ill health capability on 14 December 2021.
- The claimant failed to comply with multiple tribunal orders, including providing a witness statement.
- The tribunal struck out the claims for non-compliance with orders.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a Nursing Assistant for the respondent.
-
Sickness absence began
Claimant reported having 'vacant' episodes at work and commenced long-term sickness absence.
-
Temporary redeployment
Claimant was temporarily redeployed to Outpatients Department after return from sick leave.
-
Occupational Health advice
Occupational Health advised claimant was not safe to work in a clinical environment without constant supervision.
-
Medical redeployment register
Claimant agreed to explore medical redeployment to a non-clinical role and was placed on the register.
-
End of redeployment review
Formal review meeting held; claimant indicated she could not undertake administrative roles without intensive training.
-
Dismissal hearing
Hearing to consider claimant's ongoing employment; she was accompanied by a union representative.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant informed in writing that her employment was terminated due to ill health capability.
-
First claim presented
Claimant presented first claim for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and whistleblowing.
-
Final hearing commenced
Hearing listed for 7 days; claimant attended unrepresented and sought postponement.
-
Claims struck out
Tribunal struck out all claims for non-compliance with orders.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the claimant's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims due to her failure to comply with orders, such as providing a witness statement, and whether to grant a postponement.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims for non-compliance with orders. The claimant, a nursing assistant with 18 years' service, was dismissed on ill-health capability grounds after a long sickness absence. She failed to provide a witness statement and comply with other orders, despite warnings. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always comply with tribunal orders, including deadlines for witness statements, or risk having your claim struck out.
- If you are unrepresented, seek advice or ask for more time early if you cannot meet deadlines.
- Long service does not protect your claim if you fail to follow tribunal procedures.
- Tribunals have wide powers to strike out claims for non-compliance, even if the underlying case has merit.
When procedural failings end a claim
This case shows that even a potentially strong unfair dismissal claim can fail if the claimant does not follow tribunal rules. The nursing assistant had worked for the NHS trust for 18 years before being dismissed due to ill health. She had a neurological condition causing seizures and had been absent since 2017. The trust tried to redeploy her but no suitable role was found, leading to dismissal.
The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and whistleblowing. However, she failed to comply with multiple tribunal orders, including providing a witness statement. Despite warnings, she did not remedy the breaches. The tribunal struck out her claims, meaning they were never heard on their merits.
What could have been done differently
The claimant represented herself after her union representative withdrew. She could have asked for more time or sought legal advice to meet deadlines. The tribunal noted she had been given several opportunities but did not comply. Employers should note that while they must follow fair procedures, employees also have obligations in tribunal proceedings.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals enforce procedural rules strictly. Even if you have a long service and a sympathetic story, failing to comply with orders can end your claim. For employees, it highlights the importance of seeking representation or at least communicating with the tribunal if you are struggling. For employers, it shows that a well-documented capability process can withstand challenge, but procedural compliance by both sides is key.
Similar cases
Production operative dismissed after year-long absence: tribunal strikes out unfair dismissal claim
A production operative who was dismissed after over a year of sickness absence has had her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims struck out. The tribunal found she was not disabled and her dismissal was fair.
12-year employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after multiple chances to plead case
A Night Care Assistant with 12 years' service had her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims struck out after failing to properly set out her case despite repeated opportunities. No compensation was awarded.
Long-term sickness dismissal: employer's flawed process saved by fair appeal
A station support assistant lost his unfair dismissal claim after 20 months off work. The tribunal found the initial decision to dismiss was premature, but the appeal corrected the flaw.
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.