Unfair dismissal claim struck out after claimant failed to respond to tribunal
A tribunal struck out a former support officer's unfair dismissal claim against London Borough of Enfield after he failed to confirm whether he wished to pursue it and did not attend hearings.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #struck-out
- #non-attendance
- #data-protection
- #jurisdiction
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy.
- The claimant failed to attend a preliminary hearing on 9 July 2023.
- The claimant did not confirm whether he wished to pursue his unfair dismissal claim by the deadline of 28 July 2023.
- The claimant did not request a change of hearing format by the deadline.
- The claimant's data protection complaint is outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal and alleged breach of data protection.
-
Tribunal alert
The tribunal alerted the claimant that it does not have jurisdiction over data protection complaints.
-
Claimant email
The claimant emailed the tribunal indicating his claim was about data protection, but unfair dismissal was part of it.
-
Case management orders suspended
Case management orders were suspended pending a hearing to consider striking out the claim.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Hunt conducted a private preliminary hearing which the claimant failed to attend. The hearing was adjourned.
-
Order to confirm intention
Judge Hunt ordered the claimant to confirm by 28 July 2023 whether he wished to pursue his unfair dismissal claim.
-
Final hearing
The claimant did not attend. The respondent's solicitor reported receiving an email from the claimant about inability to conduct video hearings.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge M Ord struck out the claim for want of jurisdiction regarding data protection and for failure to pursue the unfair dismissal claim.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim should be struck out for failure to prosecute, and whether the data protection complaint could proceed given the tribunal's lack of jurisdiction.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the entire claim.
- The data protection complaint was struck out because employment tribunals do not have jurisdiction to hear such claims.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant failed to comply with a tribunal order requiring him to confirm by 28 July 2023 whether he wished to pursue it, and he did not attend the final hearing.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring an unfair dismissal claim, respond promptly to all tribunal orders and deadlines, or your claim may be struck out.
- Employment tribunals cannot hear data protection complaints; these must be raised with the Information Commissioner's Office or in court.
- If you cannot attend a video hearing, you must formally request a change of format by the deadline given by the tribunal.
- Attend all preliminary hearings, even if you think your claim is about something else, or you risk losing your case.
This case shows what can happen when a claimant fails to engage with the tribunal process. The former Access Resources Integrated Services Support Officer had been dismissed by London Borough of Enfield on grounds of redundancy. He brought an unfair dismissal claim, but also complained about a data protection breach relating to his medical records.
The tribunal's jurisdiction warning
The tribunal wrote to the claimant early on, explaining that it could not deal with data protection complaints. Despite this, the claimant continued to focus on that aspect. At a preliminary hearing in July 2023, which the claimant did not attend, the judge gave him a clear deadline: confirm by 28 July whether he wanted to pursue the unfair dismissal claim. He did not do so. He also failed to request a change from video hearing format, despite saying he could not use video.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have avoided strike-out by simply replying to the tribunal's order. Even a brief email saying 'I wish to proceed with my unfair dismissal claim' would have kept the case alive. He could also have formally asked for a telephone or in-person hearing if video was a problem. Instead, his silence and non-attendance left the tribunal with no choice but to strike out the claim.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect claimants to follow directions and attend hearings. Failing to do so can end a claim regardless of its merits. It also highlights that employment tribunals have limited jurisdiction — data protection complaints belong elsewhere. Anyone considering a claim should check what a tribunal can and cannot hear, and must respond to every order on time.
Similar cases
Claim struck out after employee fails to attend hearing and lacks service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because he did not have two years' continuous service and failed to attend a preliminary hearing or comply with tribunal orders.
Former employee's claims dismissed after missing time limits and hearing
A former employee's claims for unfair dismissal, holiday pay, and breach of contract were dismissed by the tribunal because they were brought outside the legal time limits and she failed to attend the final hearing.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule and non-attendance
A head of digital who worked for less than two years had her unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction, and her other claims dismissed after she failed to attend the hearing.
Zero-hours security officer loses unfair dismissal claim over COVID test site removal
A tribunal struck out a security officer's unfair dismissal claim because she was not an employee and had not been dismissed, highlighting the limits of employment rights for casual workers.