Cases6007313/2024

Claimant v Supreme CBD Ltd

7 October 2025Before Employment Judge DennehyManchesterremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(age)struck out

Claim struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders, failure to actively pursue the claim, and because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. Claimant failed to provide any disclosure, witness statements, or engage with the tribunal process since July 2025.

Harassment(age)struck out

Claim struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders, failure to actively pursue the claim, and because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. Claimant failed to comply with case management orders and abandoned the litigation.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Claim for non-payment of final wage and commission struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue. Claimant did not attend the hearing or provide any evidence to support the claim.

Breach of Contractstruck out

Claim for notice pay struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claim. Claimant failed to engage with the tribunal process and did not attend the preliminary hearing.

Otherstruck out

Claim for failure to provide written statement of particulars struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders, failure to actively pursue, and impossibility of a fair hearing due to complete lack of engagement by claimant.

Facts

Claimant worked for respondent from February to June 2024 and brought claims for age-related harassment, unlawful wage deductions, notice pay, and failure to provide written particulars. The claimant was initially represented by a solicitor until January 2025, then appeared in person at a March 2025 preliminary hearing where case management orders were made. The claimant's representative emailed in July 2025 stating the claimant was in prison for a motoring offence but provided no further details. The claimant then completely failed to engage, providing no disclosure, no witness statements, and did not attend the October 2025 preliminary hearing.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all claims under Rules 38(1)(c), (d) and (e) on the basis of non-compliance with tribunal orders, failure to actively pursue the claim, and impossibility of a fair hearing. The judge found the claimant had intentionally failed to engage with the litigation for over a year, had caused serious prejudice to the respondent who had complied with all orders, and there was no confidence the claimant would comply in future.

Practical note

Complete abandonment of a claim through non-compliance with orders and failure to attend hearings will result in strike out even for litigants in person, particularly where the respondent has been prejudiced and there is no prospect of future engagement.

Legal authorities cited

Birkett v James [1987] AC 297HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd UKEAT/0098/16Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd EAT 0119/18North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias [2007] IRLR 603Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson [2013] ICR 1108Cox v Adecco and ors [2021] ICR 1307

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 Rule 38

Case details

Case number
6007313/2024
Decision date
7 October 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Service
4 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No