Claimant v Lidl Great Britain Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under rule 38(1)(d) for non-pursuit. The claimant failed to respond to the tribunal's unless order dated 27 March 2025, did not provide reasons by 3 April 2025, and did not request a hearing. The claimant's previous solicitors had withdrawn on 6 March 2025 after being unable to obtain instructions, demonstrating the claimant was no longer engaging with the claim.
Facts
The claimant brought an employment claim against Lidl Great Britain Limited. The claimant's solicitors wrote to the tribunal on 12 and 27 February 2025 stating they could not obtain instructions from the claimant. On 6 March 2025, the solicitors withdrew from representation due to lack of response. On 27 March 2025, the tribunal issued an unless order requiring the claimant to provide written reasons by 3 April 2025 or request a hearing regarding why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant failed to comply with this order.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal found it clear that the claimant was no longer engaging with the claim, having failed to respond to the unless order, failed to instruct his solicitors, and failed to engage with the proceedings.
Practical note
Claimants must actively engage with tribunal proceedings and respond to unless orders or face strike-out for non-pursuit, even if they were previously legally represented.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001784/2024
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No