Claimant v Bolton Cares (A) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out specific allegations (6(c), 6(d), 6(m)) that formed part of the constructive dismissal claim due to failure to particularise and unreasonable conduct. However, other allegations forming part of the constructive dismissal claim remain to be heard at the final hearing in September 2025.
The entire Working Time Regulations claim (allegation 28) concerning alleged breach of Regulation 12(1) WTR for failure to provide rest breaks between January 2020 and May 2023 was struck out. The claimant failed to provide necessary particulars identifying specific dates, who refused breaks, and shift lengths despite repeated requests and tribunal directions over 14 months.
The allegations concerning excessive working hours in breach of contract (6(c) and 6(d)) were struck out for failure to provide specific dates, who required excessive hours, and the extent of excess hours worked. These allegations spanned January 2020 to May 2023 but the claimant could not particularise them despite professional representation and multiple opportunities.
Facts
The claimant was a support worker for Bolton Cares who brought claims including constructive dismissal and Working Time Regulations breaches spanning January 2020 to May 2023. She alleged being required to work excessive hours without breaks, being unable to leave at end of shifts due to lack of cover, and being refused rest breaks. Despite being professionally represented throughout and over 14 months since case management directions, the claimant failed to provide necessary particulars of her allegations including specific dates, who was responsible, and extent of hours worked.
Decision
The tribunal struck out four specific allegations (6(c), 6(d), 6(m) and the entire Working Time Regulations claim at allegation 28) on three grounds: no reasonable prospects of success, failure to comply with tribunal orders, and unreasonable conduct. The claimant's representative repeatedly failed to provide required particulars despite multiple requests from the respondent and tribunal directions, instead sending spreadsheets with unexplained dates that included days the claimant was on leave or worked insufficient hours.
Practical note
Professional representatives must comply with tribunal directions to particularise claims with specific dates and details - repeatedly sending ambiguous spreadsheets without narrative, expecting the respondent to decipher the claim, constitutes deliberate and persistent unreasonable conduct justifying strike out even before trial.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2410287/2023
- Decision date
- 28 May 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Support Worker
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No