Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because claimant failed to comply with Tribunal Order dated 13 January 2025, failed to respond to strike-out warning dated 30 April 2025, and has not actively pursued the claim.
Facts
Mr Exley brought a claim against Prydis Legal but failed to comply with a Tribunal Order dated 13 January 2025. The Tribunal issued a strike-out warning on 30 April 2025 giving him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing. The claimant failed to respond to the warning letter.
Decision
The Tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(d) because the claimant had not actively pursued it, had failed to comply with the earlier Order, and had not responded to the strike-out warning by making representations or requesting a hearing.
Practical note
Claimants must actively pursue their claims and comply with tribunal orders, or risk strike-out for non-pursuit even without a hearing if they fail to respond to warnings.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004129/2024
- Decision date
- 9 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Prydis Legal
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No