Claimant v Lloyds Bank Plc
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out in its entirety under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue it. The claimant failed to attend two preliminary hearings without explanation, failed to respond to tribunal orders and strike-out warnings, and demonstrated no engagement with the proceedings except for one email in April 2025.
Facts
The claimant filed an ET1 on 30 September 2024. He failed to attend a preliminary hearing on 28 February 2025 without communication. After tribunal warnings of strike-out, he sent one email on 14 April 2025 apologising for his lack of communication, saying he was busy retaking his university year, and requesting the hearing be delayed until July/August. The tribunal accommodated this request, relisting for 18 August 2025. The claimant again failed to attend this hearing and made no further contact with the tribunal.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue it. The judge found that despite clear warnings, the claimant had failed to engage with proceedings, missed two hearings, and shown no evidence of pursuing his claim. The tribunal considered an unless order but concluded it would serve no useful purpose given the claimant's complete lack of engagement.
Practical note
Tribunals will strike out claims where claimants demonstrate persistent non-engagement despite warnings and accommodation, even where the claimant cites personal circumstances such as university commitments.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013398/2024
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Lloyds Bank Plc
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No