Claimant v MZ Fibres Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant made no significant progress since July 2023, failed to prepare a witness statement or hearing bundle, and made a late postponement application on the eve of the final hearing. There had been no active effort to bring the proceedings to a conclusion over nearly three years.
Struck out for non-pursuit as part of the overall claim. The claimant had provided Further Particulars of harassment and discrimination in June 2023 but took no further steps to progress this claim to hearing, failing to prepare evidence or comply with case management orders.
Struck out for non-pursuit as part of the overall claim. Despite alleging harassment and abuse throughout employment related to religion or belief, the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim after providing initial particulars, with no witness statement or bundle prepared for the final hearing.
Struck out for non-pursuit. The claimant contended he was underpaid wages and provided a Schedule of Loss in June 2023, but failed to take any further steps to prove his monetary claims at the hearing scheduled for April 2025.
Struck out for non-pursuit. The claimant alleged he had been harassed and abused throughout his employment and provided Further Particulars in June 2023, but failed to prepare evidence or actively progress the claim over the following 21 months.
Facts
The claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, race and religion discrimination, harassment and unlawful deduction of wages after allegedly resigning in February 2022. He was represented by a solicitor throughout. The original final hearing scheduled for October 2023 was postponed at the claimant's request due to lack of preparation. New hearing dates were set for April 2025. Despite providing some initial particulars and documents in 2023, no further progress was made. The claimant's solicitor applied for a further postponement on the eve of the hearing, stating the claimant had been difficult to contact in 2024 and that a witness statement had not been completed.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the entire claim under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue it. The tribunal found that there had been no significant progress since July 2023, no witness statement or hearing bundle prepared, and no adequate explanation for the lack of preparation. The tribunal concluded that the claimant had made no serious effort to bring the proceedings to a conclusion despite being legally represented, and that by the time a new hearing could be listed it would be several years after the events in question.
Practical note
Even with legal representation, a claimant must actively pursue their claim and comply with case management orders; prolonged inactivity over 21 months without adequate explanation will result in strike-out regardless of the respondent's own failures to engage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2404042/2022
- Decision date
- 15 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- MZ Fibres Ltd
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor