IT consultant unfairly dismissed after employer ignored tribunal orders
A tribunal struck out the employer's response and awarded £7,119.71 for unfair dismissal after the company failed to comply with directions and did not attend the hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #acas-code-uplift
- #unlawful-deductions
- #holiday-pay
- #pension-deductions
- #training-expenses
- #strike-out-for-non-compliance
Key facts
- The claimant was unfairly dismissed with an effective date of termination of 5 October 2021.
- The respondent failed to comply with all tribunal directions and did not attend the final hearing.
- The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on grievance procedures.
- The respondent made unlawful deductions from wages, including unpaid salary, holiday pay, and pension contributions.
- The claimant mitigated his loss by obtaining alternative employment, reducing the compensatory award.
Timeline
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant was dismissed from his employment with Puma Solutions IT Consultancy Limited.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant filed an ET1 claim for unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, and breach of contract.
-
Initial directions
The tribunal issued directions for a one-day hearing on 23 June 2022, with deadlines for disclosure, bundle, and witness statements.
-
Original hearing postponed
The hearing was relisted for 8 and 9 September 2022 due to lack of court space.
-
Respondent fails to disclose
The respondent missed the disclosure deadline, and the claimant's solicitors chased compliance.
-
Claimant applies for unless order
The claimant applied for an order striking out the response unless the respondent provided a witness statement by 2 September 2022.
-
Respondent seeks postponement
The respondent applied to postpone the hearing due to Mr Ella's ill health, but provided no medical evidence.
-
Postponement refused
Employment Judge Cookson refused the postponement application, noting lack of medical evidence.
-
Final hearing day 1
The respondent did not attend. The tribunal struck out the response and proceeded to hear remedy evidence.
-
Judgment given
The tribunal awarded £7,119.71 for unfair dismissal, £4,566.57 for unlawful deductions, and £158.14 for holiday pay.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the employer's response due to non-compliance with directions and whether to proceed to determine remedy in the employer's absence.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the respondent's response and found the claimant was unfairly dismissed with an effective date of termination of 5 October 2021. The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, leading to a 25% uplift on the compensatory award.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £738.46
- Compensatory award: £6,381.25
- Total unfair dismissal: £7,119.71
- Unlawful deductions from wages: £4,566.57
- Holiday pay: £158.14
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers who ignore tribunal directions risk having their defence struck out and a default judgment entered against them.
- Failing to attend the final hearing without good reason (e.g., medical evidence) can lead to the tribunal proceeding in your absence.
- Unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice can result in a 25% uplift on compensation.
- Employees can claim for unlawful deductions including unpaid salary, holiday pay, and pension contributions in the same claim.
When ignoring tribunal orders backfires
This case shows the serious consequences for employers who fail to engage with the tribunal process. The IT consultant brought claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions after being dismissed in October 2021. The employer, Puma Solutions IT Consultancy Limited, repeatedly missed deadlines for disclosure and witness statements, and did not attend the final hearing.
What the employer did wrong
The respondent failed to comply with all tribunal directions, including providing a witness statement by the extended deadline. A last-minute application to postpone the hearing due to ill health was refused because no medical evidence was provided. The tribunal concluded that the employer's non-compliance made a fair hearing impossible, and struck out the response under rule 37(1)(c).
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case highlights that tribunals will not allow employers to avoid proceedings by simply ignoring orders. The claimant was able to obtain compensation without having to prove the full merits of his case at a contested hearing. The 25% ACAS uplift added over £1,200 to the compensatory award, reflecting the employer's unreasonable failure to follow grievance procedures.
The total award of £7,119.71 for unfair dismissal, plus additional sums for unlawful deductions and holiday pay, demonstrates that claimants can recover multiple heads of loss in one claim. The case also shows the importance of mitigating loss: the claimant found alternative employment, which reduced the compensatory award.
Similar cases
Café worker dismissed for asking to be paid minimum wage wins £51,748
A café worker with 12 years' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after repeatedly asking for his full wages, which were below the national minimum wage. The tribunal awarded £51,748.84.
Employer who ignored tribunal claims hit with £109,000 default judgment
A former employee with just two years' service has been awarded £109,363 after her employer failed to respond to her unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deductions claims.
Carer with 18 years' service wins constructive dismissal after employer's breach of trust
A carer who resigned after her employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for her back condition and made unlawful deductions from her wages has been awarded over £44,000 for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.