Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out for non-compliance with a tribunal order dated 12 November 2024 and for not being actively pursued. The claimant failed to respond to the tribunal's letter asking whether the claim was being pursued and why it should not be struck out given the respondent's position that the contract was reinstated after an internal appeal, meaning there was no dismissal.
Facts
Mr Dias brought an unfair dismissal claim against Royal Mail Group Ltd. The Respondent contended that there was no dismissal because the Claimant's contract was reinstated after an internal appeal. On 12 November 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the Claimant asking whether the claim was being actively pursued and why it should not be struck out in light of the Respondent's position. The Claimant failed to respond to this letter.
Decision
The Tribunal struck out the claim under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order and for not being actively pursued. The Claimant's failure to respond to the Tribunal's letter led to the dismissal of the entire claim without a hearing on the merits.
Practical note
Claimants must respond to tribunal correspondence and comply with orders, particularly when the tribunal is considering whether to strike out the claim, or risk having their claim dismissed for non-pursuit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2202733/2023
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No