Claimant v Ms A Baskerville
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for non-pursuit. The claimant failed to comply with case management orders, did not respond to pre-hearing correspondence, and did not attend the strike-out hearing. The tribunal found this behaviour to be intentional and contumelious (disrespectful to the court).
The unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
Facts
The claimant brought a pregnancy discrimination claim in May 2023 against her then-employer and its director. Neither party complied with case management orders made at a preliminary hearing in March 2024. The respondents' solicitors came off the record shortly before the final hearing. The claimant cited family court proceedings and new employment as reasons for non-attendance at a strike-out hearing, but had failed to prepare for the case or respond to tribunal correspondence.
Decision
The tribunal struck out both the claim and the responses under Rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue. Employment Judge Tsamados found that both parties' conduct was intentional and contumelious, showing disrespect to the tribunal system. Neither party attended the strike-out hearing, and neither had complied with case management orders despite clear warnings.
Practical note
Parties must actively pursue their claims and comply with case management orders; failure to do so, particularly without proper explanation, will result in strike-out for intentional and contumelious conduct regardless of the merits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302199/2023
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Ms A Baskerville
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No