Retail assistant's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A 15-year retail assistant had her entire claim struck out after failing to respond to a strike-out warning and not complying with case management orders. The tribunal had already dismissed her race discrimination claims and refused to add a whistleblowing complaint.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #non-compliance
- #failure-to-prosecute
- #conspiracy-theory
- #whistleblowing-amendment-refused
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a retail assistant from 2007 until dismissal in August 2022.
- The claimant brought claims of race discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, and sought to add a whistleblowing complaint.
- At a preliminary hearing on 15 September 2022, the race discrimination claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The claimant's application to amend to add a whistleblowing complaint was refused.
- The only remaining claim (unlawful deduction from wages) was listed for final hearing on 26-27 January 2023.
- The claimant failed to comply with case management orders and did not respond to a strike-out warning, leading to the entire claim being struck out on 16 January 2023.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for Sainsbury’s as a retail assistant.
-
Sickness absence period 1
The claimant was absent from work due to sickness from 23 March 2021 to 10 May 2021.
-
Incident leading to dismissal
The claimant was involved in an incident of alleged aggressive behaviour.
-
Sickness absence period 2
The claimant was absent from work due to sickness from 13 May 2022 to 27 April 2022 (note: dates appear inconsistent in judgment).
-
Claim form presented
The claimant submitted a claim form with multiple complaints including discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct due to the incident on 7 March 2022.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Baty held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction and strike out applications. Most claims were struck out or withdrawn; only the unlawful deduction claim remained.
-
Respondent's strike-out application
The respondent applied to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's non-compliance with orders.
-
Strike-out warning
The tribunal warned the claimant that it was considering striking out the claim and gave her until 30 December 2022 to respond.
-
Claim struck out
Employment Judge Baty struck out the entire claim due to the claimant's failure to respond to the strike-out warning and non-compliance with orders.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's failure to comply with tribunal orders and actively pursue her claim justified striking out the entire case, leaving her with no remedy.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's remaining claim for unlawful deduction from wages due to her failure to comply with case management orders and her failure to respond to a strike-out warning. The claimant had not provided the required documents or engaged with the process, leading the tribunal to conclude that she had no intention of pursuing the claim. No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always comply with tribunal orders and deadlines – failure to do so can result in your entire claim being struck out.
- If you receive a strike-out warning, respond immediately with reasons why the claim should continue, or you risk losing your case without a hearing.
- Bringing multiple weak or unsubstantiated claims can harm your credibility and may lead to early dismissal of even potentially valid claims.
- Seek legal advice early if you are unsure about the merits of your case – a tribunal may refuse permission to add new claims if they are late or lack substance.
A case undone by non-compliance
This case illustrates how a claimant's failure to engage with the tribunal process can lead to the complete loss of a claim, even if there might have been some merit in it. The retail assistant, who had worked for Sainsbury’s for 15 years, initially brought a wide range of claims including race discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. However, at a preliminary hearing, the tribunal struck out the discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospect of success and refused an application to add a whistleblowing complaint. The only remaining claim was for unpaid sick pay.
The final straw
The claimant was given clear orders to prepare her case for a final hearing, but she failed to comply. She did not provide the required documents and did not respond to a warning that her claim would be struck out. The tribunal noted that she had not actively pursued the claim and had shown no intention of doing so. As a result, the entire claim was struck out just days before the final hearing was due to take place.
What this means for similar claims
Tribunals expect claimants to take their cases seriously and follow procedural rules. Non-compliance can be fatal, especially when a warning has been given. This case also shows the risk of bringing multiple weak or unsubstantiated claims – they can be dismissed early, leaving only a narrow claim that may still be lost if the claimant does not engage. For anyone considering a tribunal claim, it is essential to focus on the strongest claims, comply with all orders, and respond promptly to any warnings from the tribunal.
Similar cases
Claims struck out after former employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims against Aspinalls Club were struck out after repeated failures to provide required documents and respond to tribunal orders.
Former employee's claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Dr French Memorial Home Limited was struck out after she failed to attend a hearing and ignored tribunal orders, even after being given a second chance.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
Claims struck out after employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's claims for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and age discrimination have been struck out after repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders and participate in hearings.