Shop worker's unfair dismissal claim fails after respondent's response struck out
A former shop worker's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after the tribunal struck out the employer's response for failing to comply with case management directions for over two years.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed at The Pickle Barrel shop and went on maternity leave.
- The shop closed due to flooding while the claimant was on maternity leave.
- The claimant alleged redundancy consultation and terminated her employment.
- The respondent failed to comply with case management directions for over two years.
- The respondent's response was struck out for failure to actively pursue the case.
- At the final hearing, the claimant withdrew some claims and the remaining claims were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Termination of employment
The claimant's employment ended in disputed circumstances, allegedly due to redundancy after the shop closed for flooding.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Quill held a case management hearing and set directions, including witness statement exchange by September 2020.
-
Respondent's representative cites illness
The respondent's representative said the respondent was too ill to check her draft witness statement.
-
Claimant applies to strike out response
The claimant applied to strike out the response for failure to comply with directions.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Deol
Employment Judge Deol declined to decide the strike-out application due to short notice but invited a further application.
-
Claimant renews strike-out application
The claimant made a further application to strike out after the respondent failed to comply with orders.
-
Respondent applies for postponement
The respondent applied to postpone the hearing due to ill health, attaching some medical evidence.
-
Strike-out judgment
Employment Judge Goodman struck out the response for failure to actively pursue the case and non-compliance.
-
Final hearing begins
The final hearing took place over four days before Employment Judge Klimov and members.
-
Final judgment
The claimant withdrew some claims; all remaining claims were dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the employer's response for failing to comply with case management orders and actively pursue the case over a two-year period, and later, whether the claimant's claims could succeed after the response was struck out.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the respondent's response for non-compliance with case management directions and failure to actively pursue the case. At the final hearing, the claimant withdrew some claims and the remaining claims were dismissed. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Tribunals can strike out a response if the employer fails to comply with directions or actively pursue the case for a prolonged period.
- Claimants should ensure they comply with all tribunal directions to avoid their own claims being struck out.
- Medical evidence of illness must be detailed and include prognosis to justify delays in compliance.
- Seeking legal advice early can help both parties understand their obligations and avoid strike-out applications.
A case derailed by non-compliance
This case shows how a failure to engage with tribunal proceedings can lead to a strike-out, even when the employer has a potential defence. The former shop worker claimed she was unfairly dismissed after the shop closed due to flooding while she was on maternity leave. The employer, Ms M. Harvey T/A The Pickle Barrel, initially filed a response denying the claim, but then failed to comply with case management directions for over two years.
What went wrong for the respondent
The employer's representative cited the respondent's ill health, including possible long Covid, as a reason for delays. However, the tribunal noted that the medical evidence provided was vague and did not include a prognosis. The respondent also failed to communicate with the claimant or comply with orders to exchange witness statements, disclose documents, or prepare a hearing bundle. The tribunal found that little progress had been made and that the case was not ready for a five-day hearing.
Why the result matters
The tribunal's decision to strike out the response under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules highlights the importance of active participation in proceedings. Even if an employer has a valid defence, failing to comply with directions can result in the response being struck out, leaving the claimant's claims to proceed without opposition. In this case, the claimant withdrew some claims and the remaining were dismissed, but the outcome could have been different if the employer had engaged properly. For anyone involved in tribunal proceedings, this case is a reminder that compliance with directions is not optional.
Similar cases
PR manager's claim struck out after two-and-a-half-year silence
An employment tribunal struck out a former PR and community manager's claims of sexual harassment and victimisation after she failed to pursue them for over two and a half years, following the respondent's liquidation.
Claim struck out after employee failed to provide disability impact statement
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims were struck out after he repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide a disability impact statement, and did not attend any hearings.
Deposit order non-compliance: discrimination claim struck out after 16 years' service
A kitchen assistant with 16 years' service had her disability discrimination claim struck out after failing to comply with a deposit order. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse for non-payment.
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.