Claimant v Miss L Murphy
Outcome
Individual claims
The complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal at the preliminary hearing on 27 March 2025 before Employment Judge O'Rourke.
Claim struck out for non-pursuit and failure to comply with case management orders. The claimant repeatedly failed to comply with orders for disclosure, hearing bundle preparation, and witness statement exchange, and failed to attend the strike-out hearing.
Whistleblowing detriment claim struck out for non-pursuit. The claimant failed to comply with multiple case management orders and ceased correspondence, making a fair trial no longer possible.
Struck out due to the claimant's failure to actively pursue the claim and non-compliance with tribunal orders. The tribunal found a significant risk that a fair trial could no longer take place given the pattern of default.
Struck out for non-compliance with case management orders relating to disclosure, hearing bundle, and witness statements. The claimant did not respond to strike-out warnings or attend the hearing.
Struck out as the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim, repeatedly breached tribunal orders, and indicated in correspondence she did not intend to continue with proceedings.
Struck out following repeated non-compliance with case management orders and failure to attend the strike-out hearing. The tribunal concluded the likelihood of recurrence meant a fair trial was no longer possible.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the respondent as a carer for the respondent's son. She brought claims including whistleblowing, disability discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination. Following two preliminary hearings in December 2024 and March 2025, a five-day final hearing was listed for September 2025. Despite multiple case management orders, the claimant failed to comply with directions for disclosure, preparation of a hearing bundle, or exchange of witness statements. The claimant cited her autism and PTSD as reasons for difficulty complying, but did not seek extensions or adjustments in time. She eventually indicated she could not continue due to mental health reasons and receiving tier 4 psychotherapy.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims under Rules 38(c) and 38(d) for non-compliance with orders and failure to actively pursue the claim. The judge found repeated default, failure to respond to strike-out warnings, non-attendance at the hearing, and an indication the claimant did not intend to continue created a significant risk a fair trial was no longer possible. Applying the overriding objective and considering the finite resources of the tribunal, the judge concluded strike-out was proportionate.
Practical note
Even where a claimant has disabilities that may affect their ability to comply with procedural requirements, they must engage with the tribunal process, seek appropriate adjustments or extensions in advance, and demonstrate willingness to pursue their claims—repeated non-compliance without engagement will result in strike-out.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1401254/2024
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 0.375
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Miss L Murphy
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- carer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No