Claimant v Amazing Grace St Thomas Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for non-pursuit. The Claimant failed to attend the final hearing without explanation, failed to provide documents and witness statements despite directions, and showed a pattern of not actively pursuing the claim. The tribunal found this justified strike out as proportionate given the Claimant's conduct.
Facts
The Claimant brought an employment claim but failed to comply with tribunal directions. He provided a schedule of loss but failed to provide a list of documents or witness statement until the Respondent made a strike out application in July 2025. He then failed to respond to the tribunal's pre-hearing check letter and did not attend the final hearing on 28 July 2025. The tribunal was unable to contact him by email or telephone.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(d) for non-pursuit. The tribunal found a pattern of the Claimant failing to actively pursue the claim, culminating in his unexplained absence from the hearing. The tribunal considered proportionality and decided that the Claimant's conduct justified strike out.
Practical note
Claimants who fail to comply with case management orders and do not attend hearings without explanation risk having their claims struck out for non-pursuit, even if some limited engagement has occurred.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301853/2024
- Decision date
- 28 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No