British Airways fails to strike out claim over 7-day delay in providing dates
A former employee's claim against British Airways survives a strike-out bid after a 7-day delay in providing dates for events, with the tribunal ruling that striking out would be disproportionate.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out-application
- #case-management-breach
- #short-delay
- #reasonable-explanation
- #proportionality
Key facts
- The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims for failure to comply with a case management order.
- The claimant was late by 7 days in providing dates for events in the list of issues.
- The claimant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, including illness and postal strikes.
- The breach was rectified within 7 days and did not prejudice the respondent or the trial.
- The tribunal found that striking out would be disproportionate to the severity of the breach.
Timeline
-
Deadline for reformulated claim
The claimant was ordered to provide a reformulated claim by this date. He provided the information but without dates of events.
-
Preliminary hearing and case management order
At the preliminary hearing, the claimant was given further time (until 23 November 2022) to provide the dates of events.
-
Original deadline for dates
The claimant was required to provide the dates by this date but failed to do so.
-
Respondent's strike out application
The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claims due to the failure to provide dates.
-
Claimant provides dates
The claimant provided the required dates, 7 days after the original deadline.
-
Claimant's response to strike out application
The claimant sent a letter with exhibits explaining the reasons for the delay.
-
Judgment on strike out application
Employment Judge Eeley refused the respondent's application to strike out the claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the former employee's claims for failing to comply with a case management order to provide dates of events in the list of issues, under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal refused British Airways' application to strike out the former employee's claims.
The key reasons were:
- The breach was minor (7 days late) and promptly rectified.
- The employee provided a reasonable explanation: illness and postal strikes.
- The delay did not prejudice British Airways or the ability to hold a fair trial.
- Striking out would be disproportionate to the severity of the breach.
No compensation was awarded as this was a strike-out application, not a final hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- A short delay in complying with a tribunal order is unlikely to result in strike-out if you have a good reason and act quickly to put things right.
- Illness and postal strikes can be accepted as reasonable explanations for missing a deadline, especially if you apply for an extension before the deadline expires.
- Tribunals will consider proportionality: minor breaches that do not prejudice the other side or the trial are unlikely to lead to strike-out.
- Always comply with case management orders as soon as possible, and keep evidence of any reasons for delay.
- If you miss a deadline, remedy the breach immediately and explain the reasons clearly to the tribunal.
A narrow escape for the former employee
This case shows that tribunals are reluctant to strike out claims for procedural breaches that are minor and have a reasonable explanation. The former employee was 7 days late in providing dates of events in a list of issues, but had a good reason: illness and postal strikes. The tribunal found that the delay did not prejudice British Airways or the fairness of the trial, and that striking out would be disproportionate.
What British Airways could have done differently
British Airways applied to strike out the claim just 4 days after the deadline, before the employee had even had a chance to comply. The tribunal noted that the employee had already applied for a 7-day extension before the deadline expired. A more proportionate response might have been to agree to the extension or wait for the employee to comply, rather than immediately seeking strike-out.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that strike-out is a draconian sanction, reserved for serious or deliberate breaches. Employees who miss a deadline by a short period, with a good reason, and who remedy the breach quickly, are unlikely to lose their claim. However, it is always better to comply on time or apply for an extension before the deadline. The case also highlights that tribunals will consider the impact on the other party and the trial, not just the fact of the breach.
Similar cases
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.
Constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed after employer ignored redundancy request for 39 days
A former People Advisor who resigned after her employer failed to respond to her redundancy request for 39 days has been allowed to pursue claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal.
Former employee fails to strike out council's response over late disclosure
An employment tribunal refused to strike out Conwy County Borough Council's response despite persistent delays in providing a List of Issues and disclosure, finding a fair trial was still possible.
Claimant's unreasonable conduct in litigation: strike out refused but warning issued
A tribunal found that a former employee had conducted litigation unreasonably but refused to strike out her claim, allowing it to proceed to a final hearing despite delays and disputes over the list of issues.