Former employee's claims struck out after failing to provide details
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after he failed to particularize them despite multiple hearings and warnings. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and unreasonable conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #failure-to-particularize
- #unreasonable-conduct
- #no-reasonable-prospect
- #capacity
Key facts
- The claimant issued an ET1 on 26 November 2021 claiming unfair dismissal, race and religion or belief discrimination, and detriment for public interest disclosure.
- The claimant failed to particularize his claims despite multiple case management hearings and directions.
- The claimant did not attend the final preliminary hearing on 21 July 2023.
- The tribunal found the claimant had capacity to conduct litigation.
- The claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant's conduct was unreasonable.
Timeline
-
ET1 issued
The claimant presented his claim form alleging unfair dismissal, discrimination, and detriment.
-
First case management hearing
A telephone hearing took place but the claimant's claims could not be set out.
-
Second case management hearing
The employment judge raised the issue of the claimant's capacity and warned of strike out risk.
-
Third case management hearing
The claimant did not attend; respondents' strike out application was refused, but the matter was listed for a preliminary hearing.
-
Preliminary hearing
The claimant did not attend. The tribunal found he had capacity and struck out the claims.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Gibb issued the judgment with reasons.
The legal issue
Whether the claims should be struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success and/or because the claimant's conduct in failing to particularize them was unreasonable.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the former employee's claims of unfair dismissal, race and religion or belief discrimination, and detriment for public interest disclosure.
Key reasons:
- The claimant failed to particularize his claims despite three case management hearings and directions over 20 months.
- The tribunal found the claims had no reasonable prospect of success due to the lack of detail.
- The claimant's conduct was unreasonable, as he persistently disregarded procedural requirements and did not attend the final hearing.
The tribunal also found the claimant had capacity to conduct litigation, rejecting any suggestion of incapacity due to lack of medical evidence.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring a claim, you must provide enough detail for the respondent to understand the case against them.
- Attend all hearings and comply with tribunal directions, or risk having your claim struck out.
- If you have health issues, provide medical evidence promptly if you want to rely on lack of capacity.
- Tribunals will not wait indefinitely for you to set out your case — delay can be fatal.
A case that never got off the ground
This case shows what happens when a claimant fails to provide the basic details needed to pursue a claim. The former employee issued an ET1 in November 2021 alleging unfair dismissal, discrimination, and detriment for whistleblowing. But over the next 20 months, he never set out his case in any real detail, despite three case management hearings and clear warnings that his claims could be struck out.
What went wrong
The tribunal gave the claimant multiple chances. At the first hearing in November 2022, it was not possible to set out his claims. A second hearing in March 2023 warned him of the strike-out risk. A third hearing in April 2023 — which the claimant did not attend — led to a final preliminary hearing. He did not attend that either. The tribunal found he had capacity to conduct litigation, as there was no medical evidence to the contrary and he had not cooperated in providing his medical records.
Why the result matters
The tribunal acknowledged that discrimination and whistleblowing claims should not be struck out lightly, especially where facts are in dispute. But here, the claimant had produced four lengthy documents that still failed to particularize any of his claims. The respondents did not know the case they had to meet. After 20 months with no progress, the tribunal decided this was an exceptional case justifying strike-out on both grounds: no reasonable prospect of success and unreasonable conduct.
For anyone considering an employment claim, this case is a reminder that tribunals expect claimants to engage with the process. Failing to provide details, missing hearings, and ignoring directions can lead to your claim being thrown out before it ever gets to a full hearing.
Similar cases
Employment tribunal strikes out claims after former employee insists on criminal investigation first
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims against Govia Thameslink Railway were struck out after he repeatedly refused to proceed without a prior criminal investigation by MI5 or the Serious Fraud Office.
Sanctions law prevented maternity pay: dismissal claim struck out
A housekeeping assistant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because UK sanctions on the company's owner made it illegal to pay her. The tribunal said the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
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.