Former employees' claims struck out after unreasonable conduct made fair hearing impossible
A tribunal struck out all claims brought by four former employees of the Disclosure and Barring Service, finding their conduct of the litigation was so unreasonable that a fair hearing was no longer possible.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #unreasonable-conduct
- #failure-to-comply
- #no-fair-hearing
- #multiple-claimants
Key facts
- The claimants were former employees of the Disclosure and Barring Service.
- They brought multiple claims including unfair dismissal, discrimination, and protected disclosure detriment.
- The claims were consolidated and case managed over several hearings.
- The claimants failed to provide a clear list of issues, comply with disclosure orders, or agree a hearing bundle.
- Their counsel withdrew due to poor preparedness, and they could not obtain alternative representation.
- The tribunal found that a fair hearing was no longer possible due to unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
First claim issued
Claimants brought first claim against DBS and Mr Topham.
-
First case management hearing
Employment Judge Johnson held a private hearing; complaints not clarified.
-
Second claim issued
Claimants brought second claim against DBS, Home Office, and Cabinet Office.
-
Consolidation and further orders
Employment Judge Buchanan consolidated claims and ordered further particulars.
-
Deposit orders made
Employment Judge Rice-Birchall made deposit orders against Home Office and Cabinet Office.
-
Case management by EJ Benson
Employment Judge Benson ordered updated list of issues by 13 January 2023.
-
Claimants provided list of issues
List was narrative and unclear; respondent sought clarification.
-
Claimants provided different list
New list included additional allegations, causing further confusion.
-
Witness statements exchanged
Statements were lengthy and lacked structure; claimants applied for postponement.
-
Claimants' counsel withdrew
Counsel withdrew due to poor preparedness of the case.
-
Postponement application heard
Tribunal heard postponement application; decision to postpone within trial window.
-
Strike out application heard
Respondent's strike out application heard; claimants opposed.
-
Strike out decision
Tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 37(1)(b) and (e).
The legal issue
Whether the claims should be struck out because the claimants' conduct of the litigation was unreasonable and a fair hearing could no longer be held.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims brought by four former employees against the Disclosure and Barring Service.
The key reason was that the claimants had failed to comply with case management orders, provide a coherent list of issues, or agree a hearing bundle. Their own counsel withdrew due to poor preparedness, and they could not obtain alternative representation. The tribunal concluded that a fair hearing was no longer possible.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunals expect claimants to comply with case management orders and cooperate in preparing for a final hearing.
- Failing to provide a clear list of issues or comply with disclosure can lead to claims being struck out for unreasonable conduct.
- If your own legal representative withdraws due to lack of preparation, the tribunal may treat that as evidence of unreasonable conduct.
- Multiple claimants bringing complex claims must work together to present a coherent case, or risk having all claims dismissed.
What this case shows in practice
Four former employees of the Disclosure and Barring Service brought a raft of claims including unfair dismissal, discrimination, and whistleblowing detriment. Over two years, the tribunal held multiple case management hearings to try to clarify the issues, but the claimants repeatedly failed to comply with orders. They provided vague and shifting lists of issues, did not agree a hearing bundle, and their own counsel withdrew just days before the final hearing because the case was so poorly prepared.
The tribunal found that the claimants' conduct was unreasonable and that a fair trial was no longer possible. It struck out all claims under Rule 37(1)(b) and (e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules, which allow a tribunal to strike out a claim if the conduct of the proceedings has been scandalous, unreasonable, or vexatious, or if a fair hearing is not possible.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimants could have avoided strike-out by engaging with the tribunal process from the start. Providing a clear, concise list of issues, complying with disclosure orders, and working with their legal representative to prepare the case would have given them a chance to have their claims heard on the merits. Instead, their failure to cooperate led to the collapse of their own case.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This case is a stark reminder that employment tribunals will not tolerate unreasonable conduct that prevents a fair hearing. Claimants who bring multiple or complex claims must be prepared to comply with case management directions and present their case in an organised way. The tribunal's power to strike out is a last resort, but it will be used when a party's conduct makes a fair trial impossible.
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.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after two years of inaction
A tribunal struck out an unfair dismissal claim because the employee had less than two years' service and failed to comply with orders or pursue the case for over two years.
Claim struck out after repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims have been struck out after she repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders to provide further information, despite having legal representation throughout.
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.