Claimant v United Learning Trust

Claim struck out for failure to comply with the express terms of the Unless Order made on 25 June 2025. The claimant failed to provide a proper list of issues setting out the legal and factual basis for each head of claim, instead providing only extensive cross-references to other documents. The tribunal found the claimant had also failed to follow proper amendment procedures and had engaged in an abuse of process.

Struck out for failure to comply with Unless Order requiring proper particularisation of claims by 2 July 2025. The claimant's revised list of issues contained 118 separate cross-references rather than a clear statement of the factual and legal basis for the harassment claims, rendering the case unmanageable.

Struck out for non-compliance with Unless Order. Persistent procedural defaults over 15 months demonstrated disregard for tribunal processes and made a fair trial no longer possible.

Struck out for failure to comply with Unless Order. Paragraph 39 of the revised list of issues contained 79 individual paragraph references and 39 paragraph ranges (118 total cross-references) instead of providing the required factual and legal basis, exemplifying the fundamental failure to comply with case management directions.

Struck out for non-compliance with Unless Order and persistent case management failures dating back to September 2024. No good reason advanced for breach and no application for relief from sanctions made.

Struck out for failure to comply with Unless Order. Claimant's solicitor submitted unauthorised amended particulars on 6 August 2025 without following proper amendment procedure, misrepresenting that permission to amend had been granted when only permission to apply had been given.

Struck out for non-compliance with Unless Order and alternative grounds under Rule 38. The history of non-compliance combined with current failures demonstrated persistent and serious default making fair trial impossible.

Struck out for breach of Unless Order. Claims remained poorly particularised despite multiple case management interventions and respondent faced significant difficulties in understanding the case to meet.

Automatic unfair dismissal claim for health and safety reasons under s.100 ERA 1996 struck out for failure to comply with Unless Order. The persistent procedural defaults over 15 months and demonstrated disregard for tribunal processes rendered continuation inconsistent with the overriding objective.