Claimant v Halfords Autocentres Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out for non-pursuit under rule 38(1)(d). Claimant failed to provide medical evidence for postponement as ordered, failed to respond to three reminders, and failed to respond to unless order giving opportunity to explain why claim should not be struck out.
Facts
Claimant failed to attend a case management preliminary hearing scheduled for 16 July 2025, citing a family emergency. Postponement was granted but the tribunal ordered the claimant to provide evidence of the emergency by 28 days. Despite multiple extensions and reminders (25 September, 13 October, and an unless order on 31 October 2025), the claimant failed to provide the required evidence or respond to any tribunal correspondence.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue it. The claimant was given multiple opportunities and extended deadlines to comply with tribunal orders but failed to engage with the process or provide any explanation.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants who fail to respond to tribunal orders and deadlines, even when given generous extensions, risk having their claims struck out for non-pursuit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001255/2025
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No