Road sweeper's unfair dismissal claim struck out after representative deleted WhatsApp messages
A tribunal struck out a road sweeper's unfair dismissal claim because his lay representative deleted a WhatsApp message and failed to disclose other relevant documents, making a fair trial impossible.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #unreasonable-conduct
- #disclosure-failure
- #deleted-messages
- #lay-representative
- #vulnerable-litigant
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a road sweeper from 16 September 2003 until his dismissal on 12 July 2022.
- The claimant's representative, Mr Robert-Ogilvy, deleted a WhatsApp message and failed to disclose other relevant documents after a disclosure order.
- The claimant's wife, Ms Bnaya, gave evidence that the tribunal found to be untruthful regarding when the dismissal letter was read.
- The tribunal concluded that a fair trial was impossible due to the representative's conduct and the unreliability of witness evidence.
- The claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(b) for unreasonable conduct of proceedings.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a road sweeper.
-
Preliminary dismissal decision
Mr Mannion sent a letter stating a preliminary decision to dismiss the claimant, with a deadline for representations.
-
Dismissal letter sent
The respondent emailed the claimant a letter of dismissal, stating his last day of service as 9 July 2022 (sic) and giving 12 weeks' notice pay.
-
Claimant's wife reads dismissal letter
Ms Bnaya claimed she read the dismissal letter to the claimant on this date, though the tribunal doubted this.
-
Appeal submitted
The claimant's grounds of appeal, drafted by Mr Robert-Ogilvy, were submitted.
-
Early conciliation started
The claimant commenced early conciliation.
-
Early conciliation certificate issued
The claimant received the early conciliation certificate.
-
Claim form presented
The claimant presented his claim to the tribunal.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge E Burns listed a hearing to consider time issues.
-
Preliminary hearing (strike out)
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions, and struck out the claims.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim should be struck out because the way his representative conducted the proceedings was unreasonable, making a fair trial impossible.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
The key reason was that the claimant's lay representative, Mr Robert-Ogilvy, deleted a WhatsApp message and failed to disclose other relevant documents after a disclosure order. The tribunal also found the claimant's wife's evidence untruthful regarding when the dismissal letter was read. This conduct made a fair trial impossible.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are a litigant in person or using a lay representative, ensure all relevant documents are disclosed, especially after a tribunal order.
- Deleting messages that are relevant to the case can lead to your claim being struck out, even if you think they are private.
- The tribunal expects honesty from all witnesses; giving untruthful evidence can harm your case significantly.
- If you have difficulty understanding proceedings (e.g., due to language or health issues), ask the tribunal for adjustments early on.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how a claimant's case can be derailed not by the merits of the claim itself, but by the conduct of their representative. The claimant, a road sweeper with 19 years' service, was dismissed by Veolia ES (UK) Limited. He brought an unfair dismissal claim, but the proceedings were struck out before a full hearing on the merits.
The tribunal found that the claimant's lay representative, Mr Robert-Ogilvy, had deleted a WhatsApp message that was relevant to the issue of when the claimant learned of his dismissal — a key point for the time limit. He also failed to disclose other relevant documents despite a clear order from the tribunal. The claimant's wife gave evidence that the tribunal found untruthful on the same issue.
What the losing side could have done differently
The representative could have complied with the disclosure order fully and not deleted any messages. If a message was genuinely private, he should have sought guidance from the tribunal rather than deleting it. The claimant's wife could have given truthful evidence about when she read the dismissal letter to her husband. The claimant himself, who was illiterate and relied on an interpreter, was largely dependent on his representative and wife, which made the tribunal's decision to strike out particularly harsh in its effect.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals take procedural compliance very seriously. Even if a claimant has a strong case on the facts, unreasonable conduct by their representative can lead to the claim being struck out. Claimants should ensure their representatives understand their disclosure obligations and act honestly throughout the proceedings. The case also shows that tribunals will not hesitate to strike out claims where a fair trial is no longer possible due to such conduct.
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.
Whistleblowing claim struck out after claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders
A head of workforce development who resigned alleging constructive dismissal and whistleblowing had her claims struck out after she repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders and stopped engaging with the tribunal.