Claim struck out for non-pursuit: employee with 18 days' service loses discrimination case
A former employee who worked for only 18 days had her discrimination and whistleblowing claim struck out after failing to attend hearings or comply with tribunal orders. Her application for reconsideration was refused.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #non-attendance
- #failure-to-comply
- #reconsideration-refused
- #email-communication-issues
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 6 April 2021 to 24 April 2021.
- The claimant presented a claim on 23 December 2021 alleging multiple forms of discrimination and whistleblowing.
- The claimant failed to attend a case management hearing on 6 June 2022 and did not comply with orders to explain her absence and confirm she wished to pursue the claim.
- The claim was struck out on 24 June 2022 for not being actively pursued.
- The claimant applied for reconsideration, but the application was dismissed on 28 November 2022.
- The tribunal found the claimant had no good reason for failing to engage and that emails were likely filtered to spam.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began employment with the respondent.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment ended.
-
Early conciliation started
The claimant engaged in early conciliation through Acas.
-
Early conciliation ended
The early conciliation period ended.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal online.
-
Notice of claim sent
The Tribunal sent the notice of claim, setting a final hearing and directions, including a schedule of loss deadline of 28 February 2022.
-
Respondent applied for stay
The respondent applied to stay case management orders due to the claimant's failure to provide a schedule of loss.
-
Stay granted
Legal Officer J Skinner granted the respondent's application.
-
Case management hearing
The claimant failed to attend a telephone case management hearing. Employment Judge Broughton ordered the claimant to explain her absence and confirm she wished to pursue the claim within 7 days.
-
Order sent to claimant
The Tribunal sent Employment Judge Broughton's order to the claimant by email.
-
Claim struck out
Employment Judge Adkinson struck out the claim for not being actively pursued.
-
Strike-out judgment sent
The Tribunal sent the strike-out judgment to the claimant by email.
-
Reconsideration information sent
The Tribunal sent information about seeking reconsideration to the claimant.
-
Claimant emailed Tribunal
The claimant emailed the Tribunal, stating she was out of the country and believed Acas would keep the Tribunal informed.
-
Claimant confirmed reconsideration request
The claimant replied to the respondent, confirming she wished to seek reconsideration.
-
Reconsideration application accepted
Employment Judge Ayre directed that the matter be treated as an application for reconsideration.
-
Reconsideration hearing
The reconsideration application was heard by Employment Judge Adkinson via video link.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Adkinson refused the application for reconsideration, confirming the strike-out.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's application for reconsideration of the strike-out judgment should be granted in the interests of justice, given her failure to attend hearings, comply with orders, or actively pursue her claim.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the reconsideration application and confirmed the strike-out. The original strike-out was because the claimant had not actively pursued her claim: she failed to attend a case management hearing, did not comply with an order to explain her absence, and provided no good reason for her non-engagement. The reconsideration hearing found her evidence vague and unhelpful; she could not confirm whether she received key tribunal emails and admitted she only checked her spam folder if prompted. The tribunal concluded there was no basis to set aside the strike-out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring a tribunal claim, you must actively pursue it: attend hearings, comply with orders, and respond to tribunal communications promptly.
- Claimants should regularly check their spam or junk email folders, as tribunal emails can be filtered there, and set up filters to ensure important messages are not missed.
- A lack of engagement with the tribunal process, even if due to email issues, is unlikely to be excused if you do not take reasonable steps to monitor communications.
- Seeking reconsideration of a strike-out requires clear evidence of a good reason for non-compliance; vague speculation about email problems will not suffice.
A short employment, a long list of claims
The claimant worked for Countryside Properties PLC for just 18 days in April 2021. Despite this brief tenure, she brought a wide-ranging claim alleging automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, multiple forms of discrimination (age, disability, maternity, sex, race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation), and other payments. She sought over £153,000 in compensation. The case was set for a final hearing in October 2023.
What went wrong for the claimant
From early on, the claimant failed to engage with the tribunal process. She did not provide a schedule of loss by the deadline, leading the respondent to apply for a stay of proceedings. She then missed a telephone case management hearing on 6 June 2022. The tribunal gave her a chance to explain her absence and confirm she wished to pursue the claim, but she did not respond. As a result, the claim was struck out on 24 June 2022 for not being actively pursued.
The claimant later applied for reconsideration, arguing that she had been out of the country and believed Acas would keep the tribunal informed. She also suggested that emails from the tribunal may have been filtered to her spam folder. However, at the reconsideration hearing, her evidence was described as vague and unhelpful. She could not confirm whether she had received key tribunal emails, and she admitted that she only checked her spam folder if someone contacted her about a missed message. The tribunal found that she had no good reason for her non-compliance and refused the reconsideration.
What this case shows
This case is a reminder that bringing a tribunal claim carries procedural obligations from the start. Even serious allegations of discrimination and whistleblowing will not protect a claim if the claimant does not actively pursue it. The tribunal expects claimants to attend hearings, comply with directions, and monitor their email – including spam folders – for tribunal communications. Failing to do so can result in the claim being struck out, and a vague explanation about email problems is unlikely to persuade a tribunal to reinstate it.
For employers, the case illustrates that a strike-out for non-pursuit can be an effective way to dispose of claims where the claimant has not engaged, saving time and costs. However, the tribunal will still scrutinise the fairness of the process, particularly if the claimant is unrepresented.
Similar cases
Claims dismissed: what happens when you ignore tribunal orders
Two former employees had their unfair dismissal claims automatically struck out after failing to comply with an Unless Order. The tribunal refused reconsideration, and the claims were ultimately dismissed.
Server's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A restaurant server with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after he failed to attend hearings or comply with tribunal orders. The tribunal also dismissed his race discrimination claim due to unreasonable conduct.
Struck out for not pursuing claim: a lesson in tribunal deadlines
A former employee who brought claims for unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination had her case struck out after failing to comply with orders and not attending the hearing.
Claims struck out after employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not attend the preliminary hearing. She was also ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.