Claim struck out after employee refused to answer questions on hearing bundle
A former Capita employee had her unfair dismissal claim struck out after she refused to engage with documents during cross-examination, making a fair hearing impossible.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #unreasonable-conduct
- #refusal-to-engage
- #bundle-dispute
- #fair-hearing-impossible
Key facts
- The claimant refused to engage with documents in the hearing bundle during cross-examination.
- The claimant stated she would not answer questions based on documents in the bundle.
- The respondent applied to strike out the claim due to the claimant's conduct.
- The tribunal found the claimant's conduct made a fair hearing impossible.
- The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(b) and (e).
Timeline
-
Claimant started work on DWP contract
The claimant began working on the DWP telephony contract for Capita Customer Management Ltd.
-
Claim form issued
The claimant issued her first claim form against Capita and DWP.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Jones
A preliminary hearing was held to consider strike out and amendment applications.
-
EJ Jones reserved judgment
Employment Judge Jones issued a judgment striking out claims against DWP and some discrimination claims against Capita.
-
Case management orders sent
The judgment and case management orders were sent to the parties.
-
Disclosure deadline
The respondent sent its list of documents; the claimant did not send hers but made applications.
-
EJ Cox refused strike out application
Employment Judge Cox refused the respondent's application for an unless order or strike out.
-
EJ Lancaster refused strike out application
Employment Judge Lancaster refused the claimant's strike out application and directed that any bundle disputes be raised.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Lancaster
A telephone preliminary hearing was held; the claimant applied for specific disclosure which was refused.
-
Claimant applied for strike out
The claimant applied to strike out the claim six days before the final hearing.
-
Final hearing day 1
The final hearing began; the claimant's strike out application was dismissed.
-
Final hearing day 2
The claimant's recusal application was refused.
-
Final hearing day 3
The claimant refused to engage with documents; the respondent applied to strike out.
-
Final hearing day 4 - strike out granted
The tribunal struck out the claim due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct.
-
Written reasons sent
Written reasons for the strike out judgment were sent to the parties.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration of the strike out judgment.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Lancaster refused the reconsideration application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's conduct during the hearing—specifically her refusal to engage with documentary evidence—was so unreasonable that it prevented a fair trial, justifying a strike-out of her claim.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the respondent's application to strike out the claim on the third day of the final hearing. The claimant had repeatedly refused to answer questions based on documents in the hearing bundle, stating she would not engage with them. The tribunal found this conduct made a fair hearing impossible.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out in its entirety.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you refuse to engage with the tribunal's procedures, including answering questions on documents, your claim can be struck out for unreasonable conduct.
- Representing yourself does not give you the right to ignore court orders or refuse to participate in the hearing process.
- Making multiple applications to strike out the other side's case can backfire if your own conduct is found to be unreasonable.
- Tribunals have wide powers to strike out claims where a fair hearing is impossible, even if the claim has some merit.
When refusal to engage backfires
This case shows how a claimant's own conduct during a hearing can lead to the loss of their claim, regardless of its underlying merits. The former employee, who worked on a DWP telephony contract for Capita Customer Management Ltd, had brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination. However, during the final hearing, she refused to answer questions based on documents in the hearing bundle, stating she would not engage with them. This prompted the respondent to apply to strike out the claim.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct made a fair hearing impossible. Under rule 37(1)(b) and (e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules, a claim can be struck out if the manner in which proceedings have been conducted is scandalous, unreasonable, or vexatious, or if a fair trial is no longer possible. The tribunal noted that the claimant had previously made multiple applications to strike out the respondent's case, but it was her own refusal to participate that ultimately ended the proceedings.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have avoided this outcome by engaging with the hearing process, even if she disagreed with the tribunal's earlier decisions. Refusing to answer questions on documents only harmed her case. For respondents, this case illustrates that persistent unreasonable conduct by a claimant can be grounds for a strike-out application, but such applications should be made promptly when the conduct occurs.
Why this matters
This case serves as a reminder that employment tribunals expect all parties to cooperate in the hearing process. Claimants who represent themselves must still follow tribunal rules and orders. A claim can be struck out not just because it has no merit, but because the claimant's behaviour prevents the tribunal from fairly determining the issues.
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.