Disability discrimination claim struck out after failure to provide further information
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against GXO Logistics Drinks Ltd was struck out after he repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide details of his claim. His unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient service.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant had less than two years' continuous service.
- The claimant failed to provide further information about his disability discrimination claims despite multiple orders.
- The respondent applied to strike out the claims due to non-compliance.
- The tribunal struck out the entire claim because a fair hearing was no longer possible.
Timeline
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Martin ordered the claimant to provide further information about his disability discrimination claims by 3 January 2023.
-
Tribunal reminder
The tribunal wrote to the claimant noting the further information had not been received and required immediate compliance.
-
Final warning
The tribunal warned the claimant that failure to provide the information by 6 February 2023 could lead to strike out.
-
Partial compliance
The claimant provided a schedule of loss but not the required further information about his claims.
-
Extended deadline
Employment Judge Lancaster extended the deadline to 31 March 2023, warning of strike out if not complied.
-
Respondent's strike out application
The respondent applied to strike out the claims; the claimant was invited to object but did not respond.
-
Strike out judgment
Employment Judge Davies struck out the entire claim due to non-compliance and inability to hold a fair hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's disability discrimination claims should be struck out for failing to comply with orders to provide further information, and whether the unfair dismissal claim could proceed given the claimant had less than two years' service.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service to bring such a claim. It then struck out the disability discrimination claims because the claimant repeatedly failed to provide further information about his claims despite multiple tribunal orders and warnings. The tribunal concluded that a fair hearing was no longer possible.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed or struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have less than two years' service, you cannot bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim unless it falls within an exception (e.g., discrimination or whistleblowing).
- Always comply with tribunal orders to provide further information about your claim. Failure to do so can result in your entire claim being struck out.
- If you are struggling to comply, seek help from Citizens Advice or a solicitor and ask the tribunal for more time before the deadline passes.
- Tribunals will warn you before striking out a claim, but if you ignore those warnings, you risk losing your case entirely.
This case shows how failing to engage with tribunal procedures can derail a discrimination claim, even if the underlying allegations might have had merit. The former employee brought claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal against GXO Logistics Drinks Ltd. However, the unfair dismissal claim was quickly dismissed because the employee had less than two years' service — a legal requirement for most unfair dismissal claims.
The real issue: non-compliance
The remaining disability discrimination claims faced a different problem. At a preliminary hearing in November 2022, the tribunal ordered the employee to provide further details about his claims by 3 January 2023. He did not comply. The tribunal sent reminders and warnings, and even extended the deadline to 31 March 2023. The employee provided a schedule of loss but never supplied the required information about his discrimination claims. He also did not respond to the respondent's application to strike out the claims.
What the losing side could have done differently
The employee could have avoided strike out by simply providing the information the tribunal asked for, or by explaining why he needed more time. Seeking advice from Citizens Advice (which he did for the schedule of loss) earlier might have helped him understand the importance of complying with orders. Once the tribunal warned of strike out, a prompt response — even a request for a further extension — would have been better than silence.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect claimants to actively pursue their claims and follow procedural rules. Non-compliance, especially after multiple warnings, will lead to strike out. For anyone considering a discrimination claim, it is essential to take tribunal orders seriously and seek help if you are struggling to meet deadlines.
Similar cases
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 former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.