Claimant v Counterline Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue. The claimant was imprisoned and, despite being represented by his father as lay representative, took no meaningful steps to progress the claim over many months, causing inordinate and inexcusable delay and serious prejudice to the respondent.
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue. The claimant did not provide medical evidence of disability (carpal tunnel syndrome) and failed to pursue the claim while in custody.
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue. The claimant resigned before the redundancy process began but took no steps to progress this claim while imprisoned.
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue due to inordinate and inexcusable delay caused by the claimant's failure to progress the case while in prison.
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue. No progress was made on this element of the claim after the initial filing.
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue. The claimant failed to take any meaningful steps to advance this claim while imprisoned.
Facts
The claimant worked as a forklift truck driver from May 2019 until his resignation on 9 July 2024. He filed multiple claims including constructive dismissal, disability discrimination (carpal tunnel syndrome), and various wage-related claims. Shortly after filing, the claimant was imprisoned and represented by his father as lay representative. Between December 2024 and September 2025, no meaningful progress was made on the claim despite multiple case management hearings and tribunal directions. The claimant's father argued that nothing could happen until the claimant's release, estimated at July 2026 at the earliest.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue. The judge found inordinate and inexcusable delay, noting that despite being in prison, the claimant and his father made no meaningful attempt to progress the case, explore what participation was possible from custody, or provide evidence of limitations. This caused serious prejudice to the respondent who had been waiting since August 2024 with no prospect of resolution until mid-2026 or later.
Practical note
A claimant's imprisonment does not automatically excuse inactivity in tribunal proceedings; even with limited access, claimants must take proactive steps to explore what participation is possible and to progress claims, or risk strike-out for failure to actively pursue.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2404345/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Employment details
- Role
- fork lift truck driver
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No