Former employee's claim struck out after misleading tribunal and ignoring orders
A tribunal has struck out a former employee's unfair dismissal claim after he deliberately misled the tribunal about a medical appointment and failed to comply with case management orders.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #non-compliance
- #failure-to-pursue
- #misleading-tribunal
- #contumelious-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant failed to comply with a case management order by the extended deadline of 9 March 2023.
- The claimant sent 30 emails with attachments on 4 May 2023 instead of providing specific answers as ordered.
- The claimant claimed to have a medical appointment during a hearing on 30 May 2023 but provided no evidence and later changed his position.
- The tribunal found the claimant deliberately misled the tribunal about the appointment.
- The claimant did not cooperate during the strike-out hearing, sending multiple irrelevant emails despite instructions.
- The tribunal concluded the claimant's default was intentional and contumelious.
Timeline
-
Case management hearing before EJ Dyal
EJ Dyal made an order requiring the claimant to provide additional information by 26 January 2023. Reasonable adjustments were made for the claimant's health.
-
Claimant requested extension
The claimant wrote to the tribunal citing a heart attack and requested six more weeks to comply. The respondent did not object.
-
Extended deadline for compliance
The tribunal granted an extension, moving the compliance deadline to 9 March 2023. The claimant took no steps to comply until 4 May 2023.
-
GP records show daily monitoring
The claimant was contacted daily by a nurse after testing positive for Covid-19. He reported mild shortness of breath but said he could carry out normal activities.
-
Claimant sent 30 emails instead of complying
The claimant sent 30 emails with attachments to the respondent, but did not provide the specific answers ordered by EJ Dyal or explain how the emails related to his claims.
-
Claimant requested adjournment for medical appointment
The claimant emailed the tribunal and respondent, stating he had a hospital appointment on 30 May and needed a break between 12 noon and 2pm.
-
Case management hearing before EJ Bromige
The claimant attended but could not provide evidence of the claimed appointment. EJ Bromige noted inconsistencies and set a strike-out hearing for 7 July 2023.
-
Strike-out hearing before EJ Barker
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions. The claimant was evasive, sent multiple irrelevant emails, and failed to provide credible evidence of his inability to comply.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Barker struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued, finding the claimant's default intentional and contumelious.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the former employee's claims should be struck out because he failed to comply with a case management order and did not actively pursue his case, including whether his conduct was intentional and contumelious.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the former employee's claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The key reasons were:
- The former employee failed to comply with a case management order by the extended deadline of 9 March 2023.
- Instead of providing specific answers as ordered, he sent 30 emails with attachments on 4 May 2023.
- He claimed to have a hospital appointment during a hearing on 30 May 2023 but provided no evidence and later changed his position, leading the tribunal to find he deliberately misled it.
- He did not cooperate during the strike-out hearing, sending multiple irrelevant emails despite instructions.
The tribunal concluded the default was intentional and contumelious.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always comply with tribunal orders by the deadline, even if you disagree with them — failure can lead to your claim being struck out.
- Never mislead the tribunal about medical appointments or other matters; honesty is essential and dishonesty can be fatal to your case.
- If you need more time to comply with an order, request an extension before the deadline and provide evidence of why you need it.
- Cooperate fully with the tribunal during hearings — sending irrelevant emails or being evasive can be seen as contumelious conduct.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates the serious consequences of failing to engage with the tribunal process. The former employee, a project manager, brought an unfair dismissal claim against Surrey County Council but then failed to comply with a case management order requiring him to provide additional information. Despite being granted an extension due to his health, he did nothing until months later, when he sent a barrage of emails instead of the specific answers ordered.
The tribunal found that his conduct went beyond simple non-compliance. He claimed to have a hospital appointment on the day of a hearing but could not provide evidence, and later changed his story. The judge concluded he had deliberately misled the tribunal. During the strike-out hearing itself, he continued to send irrelevant emails and was evasive in his responses.
What the losing side could have done differently
The former employee could have avoided strike-out by simply complying with the original order or requesting a further extension with proper medical evidence. If he genuinely could not comply due to health issues, he should have provided timely medical evidence rather than making unsubstantiated claims. Being straightforward with the tribunal about any difficulties would have been far more effective than sending a flood of emails or misleading the judge.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals have strong powers to strike out claims where a claimant fails to pursue them actively. The threshold is high — the conduct must be intentional and contumelious — but once crossed, the claim is dismissed entirely. For anyone bringing a claim, the message is clear: follow the tribunal's orders, communicate honestly, and engage constructively. Failure to do so risks losing your case before it is even heard on its merits.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for non-compliance, ordered to pay costs
A former employee who failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not pursue her unfair dismissal claim had it struck out. She was later ordered to pay £1,374.80 in preparation time costs.
Car mechanic's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A car mechanic who claimed unfair dismissal and redundancy pay had his case struck out after he failed to comply with a tribunal order and ignored a strike-out warning. The tribunal decided the claim should be dismissed due to non-compliance.
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.