17-year Tesco shift leader's unfair dismissal claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal directions
A shift leader with 17 years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after he failed to provide a witness statement, disclosure, or a schedule of loss, and did not engage with the respondent or the tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Shift Leader from 15 August 2005 to 24 June 2022.
- The claimant was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct relating to sexual harassment of a colleague.
- The claimant failed to comply with multiple tribunal directions, including providing a schedule of loss, disclosure, and a witness statement.
- The claimant did not engage with the respondent's communications or actively pursue his claim.
- The tribunal found that a fair hearing was not possible due to the claimant's non-compliance.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Shift Leader at Tesco.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct involving sexual harassment of a colleague.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant engaged in ACAS early conciliation.
-
ACAS early conciliation ended
ACAS early conciliation concluded.
-
Claim issued
Claimant issued ET1 claim for unfair dismissal.
-
Directions issued
Tribunal issued standard directions to the respondent.
-
Respondent filed response
Respondent filed grounds of response after extension.
-
Hearing notice and directions
Parties sent hearing notice with case management directions.
-
Strike out application and claimant email
Respondent applied for strike out; claimant emailed tribunal stating his case was in his witness statement.
-
Claimant failed to file witness statement
Claimant did not comply with direction to exchange witness statement.
-
Strike out warning
Claimant sent strike out warning with deadline to respond by 14 November 2023.
-
Hearing and strike out decision
Hearing held; tribunal struck out claim for unreasonable conduct, non-compliance, and failure to pursue.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim should be struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 due to unreasonable conduct, non-compliance with directions, and failure to pursue the claim.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant failed to comply with multiple directions, including providing a schedule of loss, disclosure, and a witness statement.
- The claimant did not respond to the respondent's communications or engage in the litigation process.
- The tribunal concluded that a fair hearing was not possible due to the claimant's non-compliance.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Failing to comply with tribunal directions can result in your claim being struck out, regardless of the merits of your case.
- Engage with the respondent's reasonable requests for information and disclosure to avoid being seen as unreasonable.
- If you are struggling to comply, seek advice or ask the tribunal for an extension rather than ignoring deadlines.
- Representing yourself requires active participation; silence or non-compliance can be fatal to your claim.
A claim derailed by non-compliance
This case shows how a potentially serious unfair dismissal claim can collapse not on its merits, but on procedural failures. The claimant, a shift leader with 17 years' service at Tesco, was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct involving sexual harassment of a colleague. He issued a claim for unfair dismissal, but from the outset his engagement with the tribunal process was minimal.
Despite being given clear directions and multiple warnings, the claimant failed to provide a schedule of loss, disclose documents, or exchange a witness statement. He also did not respond to the respondent's attempts to communicate about the hearing bundle. The only contact he made was a brief email saying his case was in his witness statement — which he never produced.
What Tesco did right
Tesco complied fully with all tribunal directions and made reasonable efforts to engage the claimant. When the claimant failed to comply, Tesco applied to strike out the claim. The tribunal agreed, finding that the claimant's conduct was unreasonable, that he had failed to comply with directions, and that he had not actively pursued his claim.
What the claimant could have done differently
Even a strong case needs procedural compliance. The claimant could have:
- Sought help from an adviser or the tribunal's free support services.
- Asked for extensions if he was struggling to meet deadlines.
- Communicated with the respondent to agree disclosure and the bundle.
Instead, his silence and non-compliance meant the tribunal could not hold a fair hearing, and the claim was struck out without any consideration of its substance.
Why this matters
This case is a stark reminder that employment tribunals expect claimants to follow directions and engage in the process. Non-compliance can lead to strike out, even for long-serving employees with potentially valid claims. Anyone bringing a claim should treat tribunal directions as binding and seek help early if they are unable to comply.
Similar cases
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.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
Former employee's claims struck out after failing to comply with tribunal order
The tribunal struck out all remaining claims brought by a former employee against London & Quadrant Housing Trust after she failed to provide required details, despite having dyslexia.