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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, and notice pay on 19 January 2023.
- The claimant failed to comply with case management orders, including disclosure and witness statement deadlines.
- The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 29 August 2023 and provided no explanation.
- The claimant had no contact with the respondent or tribunal after the previous preliminary hearing on 19 June 2023.
- The tribunal found the claim was not being actively pursued and struck it out under Rule 37(1)(d).
Timeline
-
Potential redundancy and TUPE transfer discussion
The claimant was told she might be made redundant and was advised to seek advice from Medicare about a TUPE transfer.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim form against Medicare EMS Group UK Limited for unfair dismissal, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, and notice pay.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Massarella
A private preliminary hearing was held. The claimant attended. Case management orders were made for disclosure, witness statements, and a further hearing on 29 August 2023.
-
Administrators consent to adding Rapid as respondent
Kroll, Rapid's administrators, consented to Rapid being added as a respondent and provided a Sale and Purchase Agreement suggesting the claimant transferred to Medicare.
-
Medicare disclosed documents
Medicare disclosed its documents to the claimant, albeit one day late.
-
Respondent requested documents from claimant
Medicare requested documents from the claimant and sought to discuss witness exchange, but received no response.
-
Respondent notified tribunal of claimant's silence
Medicare wrote to the tribunal stating it was ready to proceed but had heard nothing from the claimant, raising doubts about whether the claim was actively pursued.
-
Preliminary hearing and strike out
The claimant did not attend. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, and notice pay because she failed to actively pursue them, including not complying with orders and not attending the hearing.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the entire claim under Rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant did not comply with case management orders for disclosure and witness statements.
- She had no contact with the respondent or tribunal after the June 2023 hearing.
- She did not attend the August 2023 hearing and did not respond to calls or emails.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always comply with tribunal orders for disclosure and witness statements – missing deadlines can lead to strike out.
- Keep in regular contact with the tribunal and the other side, especially if your circumstances change.
- If you cannot attend a hearing, notify the tribunal immediately with a good reason – failing to do so risks your case being dismissed.
- Pursuing a claim requires active engagement; silence can be taken as abandonment.
This case shows how quickly an employment tribunal claim can unravel if the claimant stops engaging. The former employee, who worked in patient transport and administration, brought claims of unfair dismissal, pregnancy discrimination, and notice pay against Medicare EMS Group UK Limited. She alleged she was wrongly told she would transfer to Medicare under TUPE but was later made redundant.
After an initial preliminary hearing in June 2023, the tribunal set clear deadlines: the claimant had to disclose documents by 17 July and exchange witness statements by 7 August. She did neither. The respondent tried to contact her on 3 August to discuss the case but got no reply. By 22 August, the respondent wrote to the tribunal expressing doubt that the claim was still being pursued.
On the day of the hearing, the claimant did not attend. The tribunal clerk called her twice and left a voicemail, then sent an email – all ignored. The tribunal waited 25 minutes before starting. The judge noted that the claimant had made no contact since June and had not explained her absence. Under Rule 37(1)(d), the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued.
What the respondent did well: it kept the tribunal informed of the claimant's silence and confirmed it was ready to proceed. What the claimant could have done differently: even a simple email explaining difficulties would have prevented strike out. The case is a reminder that tribunals expect parties to follow orders and communicate – failing to do so can end a claim before it is heard on its merits.
Similar cases
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.
Claim dismissed after former employee fails to attend preliminary hearing
A former employee's claims of constructive dismissal and discrimination were struck out after she failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not provide a witness statement as directed.
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.
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.