Claimant v Capital City College Group
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because it was never adequately pleaded. The claimant ticked boxes on the ET1 but provided no particulars of what wages were allegedly owed, when, or under what contractual term. Despite multiple case management orders requiring particularisation (including one by EJ Norris on 18 July 2025 requiring particulars by 4 August 2025), the claimant failed to comply. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, the claimant conducted proceedings unreasonably, and failed to actively pursue the claim. The respondent provided evidence that all contractual payments had been made.
The victimisation claim was struck out automatically on 18 August 2025 following the claimant's failure to pay a £100 deposit ordered by EJ Norris on 18 July 2025. The deposit order stated that if payment was not made by 18 August 2025, the claim would be dismissed without further explanation or order. The claimant did not pay the deposit, and the tribunal declared the claim had been struck out on that date.
Facts
The claimant brought five claims against Capital City College Group and individual respondents. Following a preliminary hearing on 18 July 2025 before EJ Norris, the vast majority of claims were dismissed, leaving only an unlawful deduction of wages claim and a victimisation claim. The claimant failed to attend the final hearing on 9-10 October 2025, having sought to convert it to a video hearing on health grounds but providing inadequate medical evidence. The claimant had failed to comply with any case management orders: he did not particularise his wages claim despite multiple directions, did not cooperate in producing a bundle, and did not exchange witness statements. He also failed to pay a £100 deposit ordered in relation to the victimisation claim.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unlawful deduction of wages claim because it was never adequately pleaded despite multiple opportunities to provide particulars, had no reasonable prospect of success, and the claimant's conduct was unreasonable. The tribunal also heard evidence from the respondent that all contractual payments had been made and dismissed the claim on its merits. The victimisation claim was declared to have been automatically struck out on 18 August 2025 for non-payment of the deposit order. The claimant's application to convert the hearing to video was refused as the medical evidence was inadequate and his failure to engage with case management suggested he was not actively pursuing the claims.
Practical note
Claimants who fail to comply with case management orders, particularly orders to particularise claims, risk having their claims struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success and for unreasonable conduct, even in discrimination cases where tribunals normally exercise caution before striking out.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2219438/2024
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- curriculum manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No