Claims struck out after claimant and representative fail to attend hearing
A former employee's race and sex discrimination claims were struck out after she and her representative failed to attend a preliminary hearing without explanation. A later bid to reinstate the case was refused.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims for race discrimination, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and whistleblowing detriment.
- A preliminary hearing was listed for 9 August 2023 to determine limitation issues.
- Neither the claimant nor her representative attended the hearing or provided any explanation.
- The tribunal struck out the claims in their entirety under Rule 37 for failure to comply with tribunal rules.
- The claimant's representative applied for reconsideration citing ill health, but provided no supporting evidence.
- The reconsideration application was refused, and the strike out stands.
Timeline
-
Claim form submitted
The claimant submitted her ET1 claim form alleging race discrimination, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and whistleblowing detriment.
-
Notice of preliminary hearing
The tribunal sent notice to the parties that a preliminary hearing would be held on 9 August 2023 to determine limitation issues.
-
Preliminary hearing
Neither the claimant nor her representative attended. The tribunal struck out the claims under Rule 37 for non-compliance.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant's representative applied for reconsideration, citing his ill health as the reason for non-attendance.
-
Reconsideration decision
Employment Judge Aspinall refused the application, finding no procedural error and that the high threshold for reconsideration was not met.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the claims for non-attendance and lack of engagement, and later whether to reconsider that decision based on the representative's ill health.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claims in their entirety under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The claimant and her lay representative failed to attend a preliminary hearing listed to decide limitation issues, and had not engaged with the tribunal since submitting the claim. The respondent attended and argued the claimant had lost interest.
A reconsideration application was refused. The representative cited his own ill health but provided no medical evidence or explanation why he could not have notified the tribunal in advance. The judge found no procedural error and that the high threshold for reconsideration was not met.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Attend all tribunal hearings or provide a genuine reason in advance – unexplained absence can lead to strike out.
- If you cannot attend due to illness, notify the tribunal as soon as possible and provide supporting evidence.
- A reconsideration application requires proof of a specific error or new evidence, not just a belief the decision was wrong.
- Lay representatives should ensure they are able to attend hearings or arrange alternative representation.
When non-attendance ends a claim
This case shows how quickly an employment tribunal claim can be dismissed if the claimant fails to engage with the process. The former employee had brought claims for race discrimination, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment against St John's Nursing Home Limited. But after submitting her claim form, she took no further part in proceedings.
A preliminary hearing was listed to decide whether her claims were in time. Neither she nor her lay representative attended. The respondent's solicitor was present, ready to argue the case. The tribunal struck out the claims under Rule 37, finding that the claimant's non-attendance and lack of engagement meant she was not actively pursuing the matter.
The reconsideration bid
The representative later applied for reconsideration, saying his ill health had prevented him from attending. But he provided no medical evidence, no details of when he was ill, and no explanation why he could not have contacted the tribunal beforehand. The judge refused the application, noting that the high threshold for reconsideration had not been met – there was no procedural error or new evidence that could change the outcome.
What this means for similar claims
Tribunals expect claimants to take their cases seriously. Missing a hearing without notice is a serious failure to comply with tribunal rules. Even if you have a representative, you remain responsible for ensuring attendance. If you cannot attend, tell the tribunal immediately and provide evidence. A vague claim of illness after the event is unlikely to save a claim that has already been struck out.
This case also highlights the risks of relying on a lay representative who may not be familiar with tribunal procedures or the importance of deadlines and attendance. Anyone bringing a claim should consider whether they have reliable support and understand their own obligations.
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.
Short-service employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out; discrimination claims survive with deposit order
A former employee of Shaw Trust had his unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out because he had less than two years' service. His race and sex discrimination claims were partially struck out and partially subject to a £5 deposit order.
Claim struck out after former employee failed to attend hearing
A former employee's claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination were struck out after he failed to attend a telephone hearing and did not comply with orders to explain his absence.
Race discrimination claim struck out after claimant failed to attend hearings
A team leader who alleged he was dismissed because of his race had his claim struck out after missing two preliminary hearings and failing to respond to tribunal correspondence.