Strike-out application refused in redundancy dismissal case
A tribunal refused to strike out an employer's response despite the claimant's allegations of unreasonable conduct, allowing the case to proceed to a full hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 6 June 2014 to 10 September 2020 as an Accounts Administrator and later in Finance.
- The claimant was dismissed with notice on 28 July 2020, allegedly by reason of redundancy.
- The claimant alleged unfair dismissal, sex/pregnancy discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unauthorised deductions.
- The respondent denied all claims and contended the dismissal was fair by reason of redundancy.
- A strike-out application by the claimant was refused as the tribunal found no unreasonable conduct by the respondent.
- A reconsideration application was refused as out of time and without merit.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an Accounts Administrator.
-
Dismissal with notice
Claimant was dismissed with notice, allegedly by reason of redundancy.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment ended.
-
First preliminary hearing
Case management hearing conducted.
-
Second preliminary hearing
Case management orders made by Employment Judge Housego.
-
Third preliminary hearing
Revised case management orders made by Employment Judge Butler.
-
Final hearing (first day) and strike-out application
Claimant applied to strike out the response; application refused. Hearing later adjourned part-heard.
-
Judgment sent to parties
Substantive judgment issued (not included in text).
-
Reconsideration application
Claimant applied for reconsideration; refused on 11 October 2023.
-
Remedy judgment
Agreed uplift of £950.58 for unauthorised deductions; remedy hearing cancelled.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent's conduct of the proceedings was unreasonable enough to strike out its response, and whether a fair trial could still take place.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response, finding no unreasonable conduct by the respondent that would justify such a step. The case was allowed to proceed to a full hearing.
- The claimant's application for strike out was refused.
- A subsequent application for reconsideration was also refused as out of time and without merit.
- The remedy hearing was cancelled after the parties agreed an uplift of £950.58 for unauthorised deductions.
Lessons & takeaways
- Strike-out applications are rarely granted unless the other side's conduct is truly egregious or makes a fair trial impossible.
- If you are representing yourself, ensure you receive all tribunal communications; check your email and contact the tribunal if you suspect something is missing.
- A delay in applying for reconsideration can be fatal; the tribunal will not accept applications made well beyond the time limit without good reason.
- Even if you feel the other side has acted unreasonably, the tribunal may still find that the case can be heard fairly.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the high threshold for striking out an employer's response in an employment tribunal. The claimant, an accounts administrator with six years' service, was dismissed by reason of redundancy. She brought multiple claims including unfair dismissal, sex and pregnancy discrimination, and unauthorised deductions. However, on the first day of the final hearing, her representative applied to strike out the respondent's response, arguing that the respondent's conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable.
The tribunal carefully considered the application but found no evidence of unreasonable conduct by the respondent. The difficulties in the case were largely due to the claimant's own lack of representation and the late change to a remote hearing caused by rail strikes. The tribunal emphasised that strike-out is a draconian step and should only be used where a fair trial is impossible or the other side has acted in a way that abuses the process.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant's representative, who was not a lawyer, could have focused on preparing the substantive case rather than pursuing the strike-out application. The tribunal noted that the claimant had already been given significant leeway, including extra time to prepare submissions. A more effective strategy might have been to seek specific orders to address any perceived unfairness, rather than asking for the entire response to be struck out.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that strike-out applications are not a routine tactical tool. Claimants should only consider such an application if the respondent's conduct is truly egregious, such as deliberate non-compliance with orders or falsifying evidence. In most cases, the tribunal will prefer to manage the proceedings and hear the case on its merits. The modest award of £950.58 for unauthorised deductions also shows that even when a claim succeeds, the compensation may be limited if the main allegations are not proven.
Similar cases
Tutor unfairly dismissed after employer mistakenly accepted resignation
A tutor with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer wrongly believed she had resigned. The tribunal awarded £1,499.54 for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages.
Server's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A restaurant server with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after he failed to attend hearings or comply with tribunal orders. The tribunal also dismissed his race discrimination claim due to unreasonable conduct.
Healthcare assistant with 3 months' service wins wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay
A healthcare assistant who was dismissed without notice after just three months has been awarded £480 in notice pay. The tribunal rejected his other claims for automatic unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, and breach of contract.
19-year employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite disabilities
A bureau operator with 19 years' service had his claims for breach of contract and discrimination thrown out because they were lodged over four years after his dismissal.