Claimant v Hyde Housing Association Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) due to unreasonable conduct in failing to clarify claims despite repeated tribunal directions, non-compliance with orders, and impossibility of fair trial after five years and ongoing refusal to particularise allegations.
Struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) due to unreasonable conduct in failing to clarify claims despite repeated tribunal directions, non-compliance with orders, and impossibility of fair trial after five years and ongoing refusal to particularise allegations.
Struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) due to unreasonable conduct in failing to clarify claims despite repeated tribunal directions, non-compliance with orders, and impossibility of fair trial after five years and ongoing refusal to particularise allegations.
Struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) due to unreasonable conduct in failing to clarify claims despite repeated tribunal directions, non-compliance with orders, and impossibility of fair trial after five years and ongoing refusal to particularise allegations.
Struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) due to unreasonable conduct in failing to clarify claims despite repeated tribunal directions, non-compliance with orders, and impossibility of fair trial after five years and ongoing refusal to particularise allegations.
Struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) due to unreasonable conduct in failing to clarify claims despite repeated tribunal directions, non-compliance with orders, and impossibility of fair trial after five years and ongoing refusal to particularise allegations.
Struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) due to unreasonable conduct in failing to clarify claims despite repeated tribunal directions, non-compliance with orders, and impossibility of fair trial after five years and ongoing refusal to particularise allegations.
Struck out under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) due to unreasonable conduct in failing to clarify claims despite repeated tribunal directions, non-compliance with orders, and impossibility of fair trial after five years and ongoing refusal to particularise allegations.
Facts
The claimant brought two claims in September and October 2020 for race and sex harassment, whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal. The claims were lengthy and unclear with a very large number of unspecified allegations. Despite repeated tribunal directions over multiple hearings spanning 2021-2024, the claimant failed to clarify the factual and legal allegations even after changing from a lay representative to a solicitor. A previous strike out in October 2021 was overturned on appeal on procedural grounds and the cases remitted. Further directions to clarify the claims by November 2024 were not complied with.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims under Rules 38(1)(b), (c) and (e) finding the claimant had conducted proceedings unreasonably by wilfully failing to clarify claims despite repeated clear directions, had not complied with tribunal orders, and that by 2025 (five years after events in 2019-2020) a fair trial was no longer possible given inevitable further delays before any final hearing. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to reconsider a previous £20,000 costs order.
Practical note
Parties must engage meaningfully with tribunal directions to clarify claims and particularise allegations; persistent refusal to do so over multiple years despite changing representation will result in strike out even in discrimination cases where such orders are normally a last resort.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2306525/2020
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor