Cases6001504/2024

Claimant v Mears Limited

8 September 2025Before Employment Judge LiveseyBristolin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Claim struck out under rule 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) for unreasonable conduct, failure to comply with tribunal orders, failure to actively pursue the case, and rendering a fair trial impossible. Claimant failed repeatedly to clarify his allegations despite four preliminary hearings and multiple tribunal orders.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Claim struck out for same reasons as discrimination claim. Claimant failed to provide breakdown of calculations despite directions in October 2024 and failed to file schedule of loss as ordered in February 2025.

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claim struck out for same reasons. Although unfair dismissal was not originally identified in box 8.1 of the claim form, claimant later indicated this was part of his complaint, but still failed to clarify the claim sufficiently.

Facts

The claimant, a plumber employed from November 2021 to December 2023, brought claims of race discrimination and unlawful deductions from wages. His claim form lacked clarity about the nature of his allegations. Despite four preliminary hearings before three different judges and multiple tribunal orders directing him to clarify his claims, provide further particulars, and file a schedule of loss, the claimant repeatedly failed to comply. He did not attend the final hearing, claiming traffic difficulties and then a flat tyre.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all claims under rule 38(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e). The judge found the claimant had conducted proceedings unreasonably, failed to comply with tribunal orders, failed to actively pursue his case, and caused prejudice to the respondent such that a fair trial was no longer possible. After 18 months and four hearings, the respondent still did not understand the case it had to meet.

Practical note

Repeated failure by an unrepresented claimant to comply with tribunal orders to clarify claims, despite multiple opportunities across four preliminary hearings, will result in strike out even in discrimination cases where the threshold is normally high.

Legal authorities cited

Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union [2001] ICR 391Twist DX v Armes UKEAT/0030/20/JOJHM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd UKEAT/0119/18Xie v E'Quipe Japan Ltd [2024] EAT 176Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330Mecharov v Citibank [2016] ICRBennett v Southwark LBC [2002] IRLR 407Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140Emuemukoro v Cromo Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd [2022] ICR 327James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 684Khan v London Borough of Barnet UKEAT/0002/18/DABalls v Downham Market High School [2011] IRLR 217

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 38

Case details

Case number
6001504/2024
Decision date
8 September 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
construction
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Plumber
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No