Claimant v Daisy Corporate Services Trading Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out for non-pursuit. The claimant repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders, including an order to provide medical evidence to support his postponement application. The tribunal found the breaches were intentional or contumelious and that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay causing serious prejudice to the respondent.
Claim struck out for non-pursuit. The claim lacked particularity and the claimant failed to provide medical evidence to establish disability status despite repeated tribunal orders. The tribunal found deliberate and persistent disregard for orders and concluded there was a substantial risk that a fair hearing was not possible given the delay and prejudice to the respondent.
Claims for other payments struck out alongside the main claims due to the claimant's failure to actively pursue the case and comply with tribunal orders.
Facts
The claimant was employed as an account manager in sales from February 2022 to November 2023. He filed claims of constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (relying on complex PTSD, survivor syndrome, and depression), and other payments in February 2024. The respondent applied to strike out the unfair dismissal claim on grounds of insufficient service. The claimant repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders, most significantly an order to provide medical evidence in support of a postponement application granted in September 2024. Despite multiple warnings, extensions, and a strike-out warning, the claimant did not provide the required evidence or adequately explain his non-compliance.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all of the claimant's claims under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim and Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with orders. The judge found the breaches were intentional or contumelious, and that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay causing serious prejudice to the respondent. Key witnesses had left the respondent's employment, and the quality of evidence would be significantly diminished by further delay. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant's claimed medical condition (complex PTSD) adequately explained his failures, noting inconsistencies between his written submissions and oral evidence, and the absence of any supporting medical documentation.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants with mental health conditions must still demonstrate genuine attempts to comply with tribunal orders, providing contemporaneous evidence of efforts made; repeated failures coupled with inconsistent explanations will result in strike-out even where a disability is claimed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2401264/2024
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- account manager
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No