Care home worker's claim struck out after failing to comply with Unless Order
An Employment Tribunal refused to grant relief from sanctions to a care home worker whose unfair dismissal claim was struck out for failing to comply with an Unless Order. The tribunal found the breach was serious and the explanation inadequate.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unless-order
- #relief-from-sanctions
- #material-non-compliance
- #litigant-in-person
- #mental-health
- #deposit-order
Key facts
- The claimant presented her claim on 29 June 2020 alleging unfair dismissal, protected disclosure, victimisation, and unlawful deductions.
- Employment Judge Wade made an Unless Order on 7 September 2020 requiring the claimant to provide succinct details of any additional complaints by 5 October 2020.
- The claimant submitted a 12-page document on 2 October 2020 which the tribunal found did not comply with the Unless Order.
- Employment Judge Brain held on 21 April 2021 that the claimant was in material non-compliance with the Unless Order and refused her amendment applications.
- The claimant's application for relief from sanctions was refused by Employment Judge Deeley on 28 June 2022 after a hearing.
- The claimant's subsequent reconsideration applications were refused as out of time and without merit.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
Mrs Badshah presented her claim form to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Wade
EJ Wade made an Unless Order requiring the claimant to provide succinct details of any additional complaints by 4pm on 5 October 2020, and a Deposit Order for a wages claim.
-
Claimant's document submitted
The claimant emailed a 12-page document to the Tribunal, which she later said was an amalgam of her response to the Unless Order and an amendment application.
-
Deadline for Unless Order compliance
The claimant did not comply with the Unless Order; she applied for an extension but it was refused.
-
Strike out of wages claim
EJ Lancaster struck out the claimant's wages claim for October 2019 to January 2020 for non-payment of the deposit.
-
Scott Schedule submitted
The claimant submitted a Scott Schedule three working days before the final hearing, which the tribunal later found did not remedy the non-compliance.
-
EJ Brain's reserved judgment
EJ Brain held that the claimant was in material non-compliance with the Unless Order and refused her amendment applications.
-
EJ Brain's reconsideration judgment
EJ Brain refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions and partially allowed reconsideration of the amendment refusal for wages claims.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Deeley
EJ Deeley heard the claimant's application for relief from sanctions and refused it.
-
Judgment of EJ Deeley
EJ Deeley issued a reserved judgment refusing relief from sanctions.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to grant the claimant relief from sanctions for failing to comply with an Unless Order, considering the seriousness of the breach, the explanation for it, and all the circumstances of the case.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions. The claimant had failed to comply with an Unless Order requiring her to provide succinct details of additional complaints. The tribunal found the breach was serious and the claimant's explanation—citing mental health difficulties and lack of representation—did not justify the non-compliance. No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Unless Orders are serious: failing to comply can lead to your claim being struck out without a hearing on the merits.
- If you are a litigant in person, seek advice early—tribunals expect compliance even from unrepresented parties.
- Mental health difficulties may be considered but must be properly evidenced and explained to the tribunal.
- Relief from sanctions is not automatic; you must show a good reason for the breach and that compliance is now possible.
This case shows the high price of failing to follow tribunal orders. The care home worker had brought claims of unfair dismissal and protected disclosure, but her case unravelled when she did not comply with an Unless Order. The order required her to provide clear details of any additional complaints by a set deadline. Instead, she submitted a 12-page document that the tribunal found did not meet the requirement.
What went wrong
The claimant, representing herself, argued that mental health issues and the complexity of the case made compliance difficult. She also submitted a Scott Schedule shortly before the final hearing, but the tribunal held that this did not remedy the earlier breach. The tribunal noted that the claimant had been given clear instructions and had not provided a sufficient explanation for the failure.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect strict compliance with case management orders, especially Unless Orders. The claimant's application for relief from sanctions was refused because the breach was serious and the explanation did not justify it. For anyone bringing a claim, it is crucial to follow tribunal directions carefully and seek help if needed. Failing to do so can result in the claim being struck out, as happened here.
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.
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.
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
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.