Claimant v Fisher and Paykal Healthcare Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c)(d) for the claimant's complete failure to comply with tribunal case management orders over a two-year period. The tribunal found intentional and contumelious default, together with inordinate and inexcusable delay, leading to substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible and serious prejudice to the respondent.
Facts
The claimant filed a whistleblowing claim on 25 April 2023. The respondent filed its response on 6 June 2023. Over nearly two years, the claimant repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal case management orders despite numerous extensions being granted. The claimant was originally legally represented but representation ceased in January 2024. The claimant cited moving house in January 2024, the death of a former neighbour, and finding a job as reasons for non-compliance.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(c)(d). The tribunal found intentional and contumelious default with inordinate and inexcusable delay over two years, causing substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible and serious prejudice to the respondent. The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanations and considered a lesser sanction inappropriate given the history of non-compliance.
Practical note
Even in whistleblowing claims involving serious allegations, persistent failure to comply with tribunal orders over an extended period will result in strike-out, regardless of a claimant's status as a litigant in person.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304295/2023
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No