Claimant v DHL Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant was ordered to provide reasons why allegations at paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, and 6.4 should not be struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success or were not being actively pursued. The claimant failed to respond by the deadline of 13 December 2024, and the tribunal therefore struck out these allegations under Rule 38.
Facts
The claimant Mr Rodgers brought claims against DHL Services Limited. Following a preliminary hearing on 16 August 2024, a list of issues was prepared. On 22 November 2024, the claimant was ordered to provide reasons within 21 days why certain allegations (paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, and 6.4) should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success or not being actively pursued. The claimant failed to respond by the 13 December 2024 deadline.
Decision
Employment Judge James struck out the specified allegations under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the papers, following the claimant's failure to provide reasons why they should not be struck out as ordered.
Practical note
Tribunals will strike out claims where a claimant fails to respond to unless orders requiring them to show cause why allegations should not be struck out for non-pursuit or having no reasonable prospect of success.
Case details
- Case number
- 1801642/2024
- Decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No