Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Financial Planning and Reporting Manager from 17 June 2013 to 1 December 2021.
- The claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy following an organisational restructure.
- The claimant filed a claim for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment on 22 April 2022.
- The claimant failed to comply with case management orders requiring disclosure of documents related to his new role and job applications.
- The claim was struck out on 31 August 2023 due to the claimant's failure to respond to a strike out warning.
- The respondent was awarded costs of £6,853.40 for the claimant's unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began employment as a Senior Financial Planning and Reporting Manager.
-
Employment ended
The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy following an organisational restructure.
-
Claim filed
The claimant filed a claim for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment.
-
First preliminary hearing
Case management orders were made, including a direction for disclosure of documents by 10 April 2023.
-
Disclosure request
The respondent requested specific disclosure of documents relating to the claimant's new role and job applications.
-
Order for disclosure
The tribunal ordered the claimant to disclose documents by 20 June 2023.
-
Strike out application
The respondent applied to strike out the claim due to non-compliance.
-
Costs warning
The respondent issued a costs warning to the claimant.
-
Strike out warning
The tribunal wrote to the claimant seeking a response to the claim being struck out.
-
Claim struck out
The claim was struck out due to the claimant's failure to respond.
-
Costs hearing
A hearing was held to determine the respondent's application for costs.
-
Costs judgment
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £6,853.40 in costs.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's conduct in failing to comply with case management orders and failing to respond to a strike-out warning was unreasonable, justifying a costs award under Rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claim after he failed to respond to a strike-out warning. It then ordered him to pay £6,853.40 in costs.
- The claimant, a Senior Financial Planning and Reporting Manager with 8 years' service, was made redundant in December 2021.
- He filed a claim in April 2022 but repeatedly failed to provide documents about his new role and job applications, despite tribunal orders.
- The claim was struck out in August 2023 when he did not respond to a warning. The costs order covered the respondent's legal costs from the date of a costs warning onwards.
Lessons & takeaways
- Complying with tribunal orders for disclosure is essential — failure can lead to your claim being struck out.
- Responding to tribunal correspondence, especially strike-out warnings, is critical; silence can result in automatic dismissal of your case.
- Litigants in person are expected to follow the same rules as represented parties; ignorance is not a defence.
- A costs warning from the other side should be taken seriously — ignoring it can lead to a financial penalty.
- If you lose or destroy relevant documents, you may still be required to obtain copies; failing to do so can prejudice your case.
When non-compliance costs more than the claim
This case shows how failing to engage with tribunal procedures can lead not only to losing your claim but also to a significant costs bill. The claimant, a Senior Financial Planning and Reporting Manager with eight years' service, was made redundant in December 2021. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment. But the tribunal never reached the merits because the claimant repeatedly failed to provide documents about his new job and job applications — information the respondent needed to assess his loss and entitlement.
What went wrong
After a preliminary hearing in March 2023, the claimant was ordered to disclose relevant documents by April. He failed. The respondent requested specific disclosure about his new role. The claimant said he no longer had the documents. The tribunal gave him a further deadline of 20 June 2023. He did not comply. The respondent then applied to strike out the claim. The tribunal issued a strike-out warning on 23 August 2023, giving the claimant a chance to respond. He did not. The claim was struck out on 31 August 2023.
The costs consequences
The respondent then applied for costs, arguing the claimant's conduct was unreasonable. The tribunal agreed. It noted the claimant had ignored multiple orders and a costs warning. The respondent had prepared for a final hearing, including witness statements and a bundle, only to have the claim struck out at the last minute. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £6,853.40 — covering the respondent's costs from the date of the costs warning onwards, plus counsel's fee for the costs hearing.
What this means for similar claims
Employment tribunals expect all parties, including litigants in person, to comply with case management orders. Failure to do so can result in strike-out and costs. The message is clear: if you bring a claim, you must actively pursue it and provide the documents the other side needs to prepare their case. Ignoring tribunal correspondence or failing to respond to warnings is not just risky — it can be expensive.
Similar cases
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.
Disability discrimination claim based on mother's disability struck out
A tribunal struck out a former employee's claim that she was discriminated against because of her caring responsibilities for her disabled mother, ruling that section 15 of the Equality Act does not cover discrimination by association.
Deposit order not paid: whistleblowing claim struck out, costs awarded
A former employee's claim for automatically unfair dismissal was struck out after she failed to pay a £500 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The GP surgery also won costs of £3,036.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.