Claimant v Teleperformance Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) for failure to comply with multiple tribunal orders regarding disclosure and witness evidence, and under Rule 38(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The claimant failed to respond to a strike-out warning, did not provide any documents or witness evidence in support of her claim, and failed to attend the final hearing despite being contacted and provided with joining details.
Facts
The claimant worked as a call advisor for the respondent from 1 April 2023 to 27 September 2023, resigning with notice. She claimed she was owed 77+ hours of unpaid holiday pay. The respondent defended the claim, stating all outstanding holiday pay had been paid on termination. The claimant failed to comply with multiple case management orders requiring disclosure of documents and witness evidence, and did not respond to correspondence from the tribunal.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(c) for failure to comply with tribunal orders and under Rule 38(1)(d) for not actively pursuing the claim. The claimant had not corresponded with the tribunal since filing her claim, failed to respond to a strike-out warning, and did not attend the final hearing despite being contacted and provided with joining details.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants must comply with case management orders and actively engage with tribunal proceedings, or risk having their claims struck out even where they may have substantive merit.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 2413183/2023
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- call advisor
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No