Claimant's last-minute compliance saves claim from strike-out
A tribunal refused to strike out an unfair dismissal claim despite the claimant's failure to comply with case management orders for months, because a fair hearing was still possible and less drastic measures could be used.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant failed to comply with case management orders by 8 November 2022.
- The respondent applied to strike out the claim on 29 December 2022.
- The claimant provided the required information on 9 February 2023.
- The tribunal found a fair hearing was still possible and refused to strike out.
Timeline
-
Case Management Preliminary Hearing
EJ Webster listed the final hearing for May 2023 and ordered the claimant to provide amendment details and disclosure information by 8 November 2022.
-
Deadline for claimant's compliance
The claimant failed to comply with the orders from the 11 October hearing.
-
Strike out warning
EJ Wright issued a strike out warning on its own initiative due to non-compliance and lack of active pursuit.
-
EJ Perry's instruction
EJ Perry instructed that the tribunal would consider striking out the claim at the 13 February 2023 hearing.
-
Respondent's strike out application
The respondent applied to strike out the claim on the same grounds as the warning.
-
Claimant's email with information
The claimant emailed the tribunal stating he would not amend his claim and provided details of protected disclosures.
-
Preliminary Hearing on strike out
Employment Judge Heath heard submissions and decided not to strike out the claim, instead varying case management orders with unless orders.
The legal issue
Whether the former employee's claim should be struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders and not actively pursuing the claim.
The outcome
The tribunal decided not to strike out the claim.
- The claimant had failed to provide amendment details and disclosure information by the deadline of 8 November 2022, and the respondent applied to strike out on 29 December 2022.
- However, the claimant provided the required information on 9 February 2023, just before the hearing, and his counsel argued that the case could still be brought back on track.
- The tribunal agreed that a fair hearing was still possible and imposed unless orders instead, requiring strict compliance going forward.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you miss a tribunal deadline, provide the information as soon as possible and explain the delay – late compliance is better than none.
- Tribunals prefer less drastic measures than strike-out if a fair hearing can still take place, especially if you are a litigant in person.
- Unless orders are a common way to enforce compliance – missing them can lead to automatic strike-out without further warning.
This case shows that even serious non-compliance with tribunal orders does not automatically mean your claim will be struck out. The former employee missed a deadline by three months, prompting the respondent to apply for strike-out. However, the tribunal focused on whether a fair hearing could still be held, and whether there was a less drastic alternative.
What the tribunal considered
The judge acknowledged the claimant's defaults were serious and had inconvenienced the respondent. But the claimant eventually provided the required information, and his counsel assured the tribunal that he understood the importance of compliance going forward. The respondent did not argue that a fair hearing was impossible. As a result, the tribunal varied the case management orders and attached 'unless orders' – meaning if the claimant fails to comply again, his claim will be automatically struck out without further hearing.
What this means for similar claims
If you are a litigant in person and struggle with deadlines, the tribunal may give you some leeway – but only if you eventually comply and show you can get back on track. The key lesson is to communicate with the tribunal as soon as you realise you cannot meet a deadline, and provide the missing information as soon as possible. The respondent in this case had to wait months to know the full case against them, but the tribunal decided that prejudice was not enough to justify strike-out when a fair hearing was still achievable.
Similar cases
Former employee's claims struck out after failing to comply with tribunal order
The tribunal struck out all remaining claims brought by a former employee against London & Quadrant Housing Trust after she failed to provide required details, despite having dyslexia.
Failure to comply with tribunal orders leads to strike out of employment claims
A former employee's claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment have been struck out after he repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not attend hearings.
Claim dismissed after failing to comply with Unless Order: a cautionary tale
A former employee's claims for constructive dismissal, disability discrimination and protected disclosure detriment were struck out after she failed to comply with an Unless Order requiring further details of her complaints.
Claim struck out after employee failed to provide disability impact statement
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims were struck out after he repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide a disability impact statement, and did not attend any hearings.