Claimant v Sunrise Records and Entertainment Limited

Outcome

Facts

The claimant brought a constructive dismissal claim against his former employer, a retail records company. He applied to strike out the respondent's defence on grounds of non-compliance with disclosure orders, misuse of the DSAR process as a proxy for litigation disclosure, and a pattern of obstructive behaviour. The disclosure process had been problematic: both parties missed the original September 2024 deadline, agreeing an extension to January 2025. The claimant then made an extensive DSAR which the respondent combined with its disclosure obligations, resulting in redacted and voluminous documents being provided in April 2025, shortly before the scheduled final hearing. The claimant's supervisor's conduct had allegedly caused him to have a breakdown and he submitted a fit note which he believed was moved to spam. The claimant sought specific documents including metadata, WhatsApp communications, and video evidence.

Decision

Employment Judge Jones KC refused the claimant's strike-out application. The judge found that while there had been breaches of disclosure orders and the respondent was properly criticised for conflating DSAR and disclosure and providing redacted documents, the breaches were not sufficiently serious or deliberate to justify the draconian sanction of strike out. The judge emphasised that the overriding objective requires flexibility and that strike out is only proportionate where breaches are deliberate, aimed at disadvantaging the other party, or make a fair hearing impossible. Neither party had complied with the original disclosure deadline, and the DSAR request made shortly before the extended deadline had created genuine practical difficulties.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited