Cases2212771/2023

Claimant v Accenture UK Limited

1 July 2025Before Employment Judge FordeLondon Centralin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

The claim was struck out under Rules 37(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) for unreasonable conduct, non-compliance with tribunal orders, failure to actively pursue the claim, and because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The claimant repeatedly failed to attend hearings, engaged in persistent non-compliance with orders, and demonstrated a pattern of disengagement throughout the proceedings.

Facts

This was the third claim brought by the claimant against Accenture UK Limited. Her two previous claims had been struck out — one for unreasonable conduct and non-compliance, and one as an abuse of process. This third claim, filed July 2023, was characterised by persistent non-attendance at hearings, changing representatives (some of questionable authority), claims of lost passports and homelessness, and a pattern of last-minute excuses. The claimant failed to attend five case management hearings, did not comply with tribunal orders, and did not attend the strike-out hearing despite it being scheduled to accommodate her needs.

Decision

Employment Judge Forde struck out the claim under Rules 37(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e). The judge found the claimant's conduct was unreasonable, scandalous and vexatious; she had persistently failed to comply with tribunal orders; she was not actively pursuing her claim; and it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The judge described this as 'difficult to think of a more egregious example of non-compliance and non-engagement by a litigant before the tribunal.'

Practical note

Persistent non-attendance at case management hearings and wilful non-compliance with tribunal orders will result in strike-out, even where a claimant claims health or other difficulties — particularly where there is a history of similar conduct in previous claims.

Legal authorities cited

Peixoto v British Telecommunications Plc UKEAT/0222/07HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd UKEAT/0098/16De Keyser Ltd v Wilson UKEAT/1438/00Bolch v Chipman UKEAT/1149/02Weir Valves & Control (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] ICR 37Emuekoro v Cromo Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd [2022] ICR 327Blockbuster Entertainment Limited v James [2006] IRLR 630Governing Body of St Albans Girls' School v Neary [2009] EWCA Civ 1190

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 38

Case details

Case number
2212771/2023
Decision date
1 July 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No