Claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust was struck out after he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not respond to correspondence. He was ordered to pay £187.50 in costs.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant failed to comply with Tribunal orders made on 22 August 2023.
- The claimant did not respond to Tribunal correspondence about striking out the claim.
- The claim was struck out on 18 December 2023 for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit.
- The respondent applied for costs, arguing the claimant acted unreasonably.
- The Tribunal found the claimant acted unreasonably by failing to comply with orders and not responding to correspondence.
- The claimant was ordered to pay £187.50 in costs.
Timeline
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Aspden made orders requiring the claimant to clarify his claim.
-
Respondent's email requesting unless order
The respondent emailed the Tribunal about the claimant's non-compliance.
-
Tribunal order to show cause
The Tribunal ordered the claimant to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
-
Respondent's follow-up email
The respondent sent another email regarding the claimant's default.
-
Final opportunity to respond
The Tribunal gave the claimant a final chance to make representations.
-
Claim struck out
Employment Judge Loy struck out the claim due to non-compliance and lack of active pursuit.
-
Respondent's costs application
The respondent applied for costs, seeking £3,276.60.
-
Costs judgment
Employment Judge Aspden ordered the claimant to pay £187.50 in costs.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the claim for non-compliance with orders and lack of active pursuit, and whether to award costs against the claimant for unreasonable conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claim and ordered the claimant to pay £187.50 in costs.
- The claim was struck out because the claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not respond to correspondence about striking out.
- The costs order was based on the claimant's unreasonable conduct in failing to comply and not engaging with the process.
- The total costs sought by the respondent were £3,276.60, but the tribunal awarded only £187.50, considering the claimant's ability to pay and that he was a litigant in person.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always comply with tribunal orders and respond to correspondence promptly to avoid having your claim struck out.
- If you cannot meet a deadline, ask the tribunal for an extension rather than ignoring it.
- Litigants in person are not immune from costs orders if they act unreasonably, but tribunals will consider ability to pay.
- Costs are the exception in employment tribunals, but unreasonable conduct can lead to a costs order even if you are not professionally represented.
This case shows the importance of engaging with the tribunal process. The former employee brought an unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, but after a case management hearing in August 2023, he failed to comply with orders to clarify his claim. Despite multiple opportunities to respond, including a final warning in November, he did not provide any representations. The tribunal struck out the claim in December 2023, and the hearing scheduled for February 2024 was cancelled.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have avoided strike-out by simply responding to the tribunal's orders and correspondence. Even if he struggled with the process, asking for an extension or seeking advice would have been better than silence. The tribunal gave several chances, but the lack of engagement was fatal.
Why the costs order matters
The respondent applied for costs of £3,276.60, arguing the claimant acted unreasonably. The tribunal agreed that failing to comply and not responding was unreasonable, but it awarded only £187.50. This reflects the principle that costs are not automatic, and the tribunal considered the claimant's ability to pay and his status as a litigant in person. The message is clear: ignoring tribunal orders can lead to strike-out and a costs bill, even for unrepresented claimants.
Similar cases
Claims struck out after housing officer failed to serve witness statement
A former housing officer's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to serve a witness statement, despite extensions and warnings. She was also ordered to pay £3,870 in costs.
Protected disclosure claim struck out: disclosure made after dismissal cannot save unfair dismissal case
A locum lawyer's claim for automatic unfair dismissal over alleged whistleblowing was struck out because the disclosure came months after his engagement ended. He was also ordered to pay £8,000 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Costs of £4,490 for bringing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success
A former employee who brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and holiday pay arrears has been ordered to pay £4,490 in costs after failing to attend hearings and ignoring a Calderbank offer.
Former employees' claims struck out after unreasonable conduct made fair hearing impossible
A tribunal struck out all claims brought by four former employees of the Disclosure and Barring Service, finding their conduct of the litigation was so unreasonable that a fair hearing was no longer possible.