Whistleblowing claim dismissed after claimant failed to attend hearing
A former employee's claim that he was unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing was dismissed after he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not attend the hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #non-compliance
- #dismissed-in-absence
- #covid-19
- #strike-out
Key facts
- The claimant claimed he was dismissed for making protected disclosures about fraud and illegal activity.
- The claimant did not comply with a tribunal order to provide further details of his whistleblowing claim.
- The claimant failed to attend the hearing on 20 June 2022, citing a Covid-19 diagnosis.
- The tribunal dismissed the section 103A claim due to non-compliance and non-attendance.
- The remaining unfair dismissal claim under section 98 was struck out after the claimant failed to respond to a strike-out warning.
Timeline
-
Preliminary hearing
A preliminary hearing was held. The claimant was ordered to provide further information about his whistleblowing claim by 11 May 2022.
-
Final hearing (claimant absent)
The claimant emailed at 09:19 stating he had Covid-19 and requested a postponement. The tribunal proceeded in his absence and dismissed the section 103A claim.
-
Judgment on section 103A claim
Employment Judge Hyams issued a judgment dismissing the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996.
-
Strike-out warning
The tribunal wrote to the claimant giving him until 13 September 2022 to show cause why the remaining section 98 claim should not be struck out for non-compliance.
-
Strike-out judgment
Employment Judge Hyams struck out the section 98 unfair dismissal claim due to the claimant's failure to respond.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to dismiss the claimant's case after he repeatedly failed to follow tribunal orders and did not attend the final hearing, even though he claimed he had Covid-19.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim entirely.
- The claimant alleged he was dismissed for making protected disclosures about fraud and illegal activity.
- He failed to comply with an order to provide further details of his whistleblowing claim by 11 May 2022.
- He did not attend the hearing on 20 June 2022, sending an email that morning saying he had Covid-19. The tribunal proceeded in his absence.
- The section 103A (automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing) claim was dismissed.
- The remaining ordinary unfair dismissal claim was later struck out after the claimant failed to respond to a strike-out warning.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always comply with tribunal orders and deadlines, even if you are representing yourself.
- If you cannot attend a hearing, provide evidence of your reason as soon as possible and request a postponement formally.
- A tribunal may dismiss your claim if you do not engage with the process, even if you have a potentially valid case.
What this case shows
This case demonstrates that employment tribunals expect claimants to follow procedural rules, even when they are representing themselves. The former employee claimed he was dismissed for whistleblowing, but the tribunal never considered the merits because he failed to provide the required details of his disclosures and did not attend the hearing.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant was given clear instructions at a preliminary hearing to provide further information about his whistleblowing claim by 11 May 2022. He did not do so, nor did he ask for more time. On the day of the hearing, he emailed to say he had Covid-19 but did not provide any medical evidence. The tribunal offered him the chance to attend by telephone, but he did not answer the call. If he had provided the required information or formally requested a postponement with evidence, the outcome might have been different.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals can and will dismiss claims if parties do not cooperate. The tribunal has discretion under Rule 47 to proceed in a party's absence and under Rule 37 to strike out claims for non-compliance. Claimants should take all orders seriously and communicate promptly if they face difficulties. Here, the tribunal gave the claimant multiple chances, but his lack of engagement led to the dismissal of his entire claim.
Similar cases
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
Claims struck out after employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's claims for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and age discrimination have been struck out after repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders and participate in hearings.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
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.