Claimant v Optec Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out under rule 38 for failure to comply with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claim. The claimant did not provide required details, schedule of loss, impact statement or medical evidence by the ordered deadlines, and did not attend the hearing.
Struck out under rule 38 for failure to comply with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claim. The claimant was permitted to amend to add this claim at a preliminary hearing on 2 September 2025 but failed to provide required details.
Struck out under rule 38 for failure to comply with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claim. The claimant did not attend the hearing and had not complied with any previous orders.
Struck out under rule 38 for failure to comply with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claim. The claimant did not engage with the respondent's reminders or attend the hearing.
Struck out under rule 38 for failure to comply with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claim. The claimant requested postponement citing business commitments but this was refused.
Dismissed at a preliminary hearing on 2 September 2025 for lack of jurisdiction, indicating the claimant did not have the required qualifying service period.
Facts
The claimant brought multiple claims including disability discrimination, race discrimination, unpaid holiday pay, unpaid wages and breach of contract against his former employer. At a preliminary hearing on 2 September 2025, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the claimant was allowed to amend to add race discrimination. The tribunal made orders requiring the claimant to provide details of his claims, a schedule of loss, an impact statement and medical evidence by deadlines in September and October 2025. The claimant failed to comply with any orders and did not attend the hearing on 13 November 2025, instead sending an email the day before requesting postponement because he was busy with business projects.
Decision
Employment Judge Cowen dismissed all of the claimant's claims under rule 47 for non-attendance, and alternatively struck them out under rule 38 for failure to comply with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue his claims. The tribunal found the claimant had a history of non-compliance and failed to engage with the respondent's reminders about outstanding requirements.
Practical note
Claimants who fail to comply with tribunal orders, do not engage with correspondence, and fail to attend hearings risk having their claims struck out entirely, regardless of the potential merit of the underlying claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6012553/2024
- Decision date
- 13 November 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No