Cases2306204/2023

Claimant v DNATA Limited

23 May 2025Before Employment Judge Sudraon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

Claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) because the Claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders dated 27th August 2024, did not respond to Employment Judge Lumby's strike-out warning, and was not actively pursuing her claim.

Facts

Ms Aksoy brought claims against DNATA Limited. On 27th August 2024, Employment Judge Sudra made case management orders with which the Claimant failed to comply. Employment Judge Lumby subsequently issued a strike-out warning. The Claimant failed to respond to this warning and did not comply with the orders.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all of the Claimant's claims under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) because she failed to comply with tribunal orders and was not actively pursuing her claim. The Final Hearing scheduled for 3rd to 6th June 2025 was vacated.

Practical note

Claimants must comply with case management orders and actively pursue their claims or risk having them struck out without a hearing on the merits.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, Rule 38(1)(c)Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, Rule 38(1)(d)

Case details

Case number
2306204/2023
Decision date
23 May 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No