Claimant v Tayside Contracts
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) for non-pursuit after the claimant failed to respond to tribunal correspondence, including a final warning letter dated 25 September 2025 giving an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out by 9 October 2025.
Facts
Ms G Smith brought a claim against Tayside Contracts, Dundee City Council, and two individual respondents (Ms D Miller and Mr S Miller). The claimant failed to respond to tribunal correspondence. On 25 September 2025, the tribunal wrote to the claimant giving a final opportunity to provide written reasons by 9 October 2025 or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant failed to reply to this letter.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant was given a fair opportunity to respond and explain their position but failed to engage with the tribunal process.
Practical note
Claimants must actively engage with tribunal correspondence and procedural requirements, as failure to respond even to strike-out warning letters will result in the claim being struck out for non-pursuit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4101107/2022
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No