Sales consultant's claims struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A sales consultant who refused to participate in the final hearing and repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders had his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out. Costs orders totalling £5,548 were made against him.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #non-compliance-with-orders
- #unreasonable-conduct
- #costs-order
- #religion-belief-discrimination
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged as a sales consultant/casual worker from 17 September 2022 to 30 October 2022.
- The claimant alleged continuous employment from a shadow shift on 28 July 2018, which the respondent denied.
- The claimant failed to comply with case management orders, including late provision of a witness statement and failure to disclose documents.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out on 1 September 2023 due to unreasonable conduct and non-compliance.
- The discrimination claim was struck out on 15 October 2024 after the claimant refused to participate in the final hearing.
- Costs orders of £1,000 and £4,548 were made against the claimant.
Timeline
-
Alleged shadow shift
The claimant claims he worked a single shadow shift, which the respondent denies.
-
Start of engagement
The claimant began working shifts for the respondent as a sales consultant/casual worker.
-
Last shift worked
The claimant's last shift with the respondent.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal and religion/belief discrimination.
-
First preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Martin held a case management hearing and made orders.
-
Second preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Allen struck out the unfair dismissal claim and made a costs order of £1,000.
-
Judgment sent
Written reasons for the strike out and costs order were sent to the parties.
-
Final hearing day 1
The claimant made late applications; the tribunal refused them and proceeded with the direct discrimination claim.
-
Final hearing day 2
The claimant refused to continue; the tribunal struck out the remaining claim and made a costs order of £4,548.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's repeated non-compliance with case management orders and refusal to take part in the final hearing justified striking out his claims, and whether costs should be awarded against him.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out both claims and ordered the claimant to pay costs.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out on 1 September 2023 because the claimant failed to comply with case management orders, including providing a witness statement only on the morning of the hearing and not disclosing documents.
- The discrimination claim was struck out on 15 October 2024 after the claimant refused to continue with the final hearing.
- Costs orders of £1,000 and £4,548 were made against the claimant, totalling £5,548.
Lessons & takeaways
- Tribunals expect strict compliance with case management orders; failing to provide documents or witness statements on time can lead to your claim being struck out.
- Refusing to participate in a final hearing without good reason is likely to result in your claim being dismissed and costs awarded against you.
- If you are representing yourself, you must still follow tribunal procedures and deadlines — the tribunal will not make exceptions for litigants in person.
- Costs orders are rare but can be made if a party behaves unreasonably, such as by failing to comply with orders or by refusing to engage with the process.
A case of non-compliance leading to strike-out
This case shows the serious consequences of failing to follow tribunal procedures. The claimant, a sales consultant who worked for ABM Aviation UK Limited for a short period in late 2022, brought claims for unfair dismissal and religion or belief discrimination. However, from the outset, the claimant struggled to comply with the tribunal's directions.
At a preliminary hearing in May 2023, the tribunal made standard case management orders requiring both parties to exchange documents and witness statements. The claimant did not provide his documents at all, and only sent a witness statement on the morning of the next hearing — nearly two months late. When asked about emails he wanted to rely on, he had not brought copies for the tribunal or the respondent.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have avoided strike-out by simply following the tribunal's orders. Providing documents and a witness statement on time would have allowed the tribunal to consider the merits of his case. Instead, his late compliance and failure to disclose relevant documents led the tribunal to find his conduct unreasonable. Later, when the discrimination claim was due for a final hearing, the claimant made late applications and then refused to continue. The tribunal struck out the remaining claim and ordered him to pay costs.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals expect all parties — including those representing themselves — to take proceedings seriously. Non-compliance with orders, particularly when repeated, can result in the claim being struck out before it is heard on its merits. Costs orders, while not common, are more likely when a party's conduct is unreasonable. For anyone considering a tribunal claim, the key lesson is to engage fully with the process, meet deadlines, and participate in hearings. Failure to do so can mean losing the right to have your case decided at all.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Whistleblowing claim struck out after claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders
A head of workforce development who resigned alleging constructive dismissal and whistleblowing had her claims struck out after she repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders and stopped engaging with the tribunal.