Claimant v Perduco Law Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing dealing with procedural matters only. The first respondent's response was struck out for unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with tribunal orders, preventing the merits from being determined at this stage.
Money claims were brought by the claimant but not determined at this preliminary hearing, which instead addressed the strike-out application based on the first respondent's failure to provide disclosure and misleading statements to the tribunal.
Facts
The claimant, a family law solicitor, resigned from the first respondent on 6 August 2024 but was placed on garden leave on 21 August 2024 after registering a company. Her employment was terminated on 2 September 2024. She brought money claims in October 2024. The claimant alleged TUPE transfer to the second respondent and sought to join them. The first respondent, a law firm represented by employment consultants Croner, failed repeatedly to comply with disclosure orders made at a case management hearing on 29 May 2025, made false statements to the tribunal about the second respondent's ABS status, and only disclosed key payslip documents the day before the preliminary hearing.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the first respondent's response in its entirety under Rule 38(1)(b) for unreasonable conduct and Rule 38(1)(c) for failure to comply with orders. The judge found the respondent had been dishonest about the existence of documents relating to the second respondent's ABS application, had failed to provide ordered disclosure without adequate explanation, and that a fair trial was not possible given the lack of confidence in the disclosure process and the dishonesty demonstrated.
Practical note
Even sophisticated parties such as law firms with professional representation face strike-out if they fail to comply with disclosure orders and provide misleading information to the tribunal, particularly where dishonesty undermines confidence in the entire disclosure process making a fair trial impossible.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013654/2024
- Decision date
- 1 January 2026
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- family law solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep