Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with tribunal orders requiring the claimant to provide particulars of her claim. The claimant had also claimed unfair dismissal despite still being employed by the respondent, undermining the viability of this claim.
The claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(c) for the claimant's failure to comply with multiple tribunal orders requiring her to provide particulars of her disability discrimination claims, details of alleged disabilities, and medical evidence. Despite repeated orders and warnings that the claim could be struck out, the claimant failed to engage with the process for over seven months.
The claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The claimant failed to provide particulars of her harassment allegations despite multiple orders and warnings from the tribunal.
Facts
The claimant, a Diary Manager in the Probation Service since April 2023, brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, bullying and harassment relating to the extension of her probationary period and a disciplinary investigation in 2023-2024. She claimed to be neurodiverse with autism and ADHD. On 4 December 2024 the tribunal ordered her to provide particulars of her claims and evidence of disability. Despite multiple orders, warnings, and extensions (the final deadline being 9 June 2025), the claimant failed to engage with the tribunal or the respondent for over seven months, save for one brief email in December 2024 and a late submission on 15 July 2025.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the entire claim under rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The judge found the magnitude of default was high, significant prejudice had been caused to the respondents, and there were considerable doubts whether a fair trial was possible given the claimant's stated inability to engage with the tribunal process. The claimant's explanation that her neurodiverse disabilities caused overwhelming avoidance did not sit easily with her continued employment and did not indicate future compliance would be likely.
Practical note
A claimant who fails to comply with tribunal case management orders for an extended period, even if unrepresented and claiming disability-related difficulties engaging with the process, risks strike-out where there is no basis to believe future compliance is likely and the respondent has suffered significant prejudice.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304232/2024
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Secretary of State for Justice
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Diary Manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No