Claimant v Lemon Groundwork Solutions Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out for non-pursuit. The claimant failed to respond to two tribunal orders, failed to attend a preliminary hearing, failed to provide a schedule of loss, and did not respond to correspondence from either the respondent's solicitors or the tribunal seeking confirmation that he wished to continue with his claim.
Facts
The claimant brought a race discrimination complaint relating to his dismissal on 13 October 2023. He failed to attend a preliminary hearing on 10 May 2024, failed to comply with an order to provide a schedule of loss, and failed to respond to a clear order requiring him to confirm by 21 August 2024 whether he wished to continue with the claim. The respondent's solicitors had attempted to correspond with the claimant but received no response. The claimant had no communication with the tribunal following the judge's order.
Decision
Employment Judge Moor struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue it. The judge found that 18 months had elapsed since dismissal, the claimant had done nothing to advance his claim beyond submitting the ET1, and delay was now the enemy of justice. The overriding objective required consideration of avoiding delay and expense, and a fair trial was now in question.
Practical note
Claimants must actively engage with tribunal orders and correspondence or risk strike-out for non-pursuit, particularly when given clear warnings and multiple opportunities to confirm they wish to continue.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201140/2024
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- union