Cases3313772/2023

Claimant v London Borough of Haringey

6 January 2025Before Employment Judge Gumbiti-ZimutoLondon Central

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

Claim struck out for non-pursuit under rule 38(1)(d). Claimant failed to provide ordered impact statement and medical evidence, did not attend preliminary hearing, has not been in contact with other parties, and tribunal satisfied claim not being actively pursued.

Facts

Ms Sheriff brought a claim against London Borough of Haringey as part of a multiple claim. The claim form failed to set out specific grounds. The tribunal ordered her to provide impact statement and medical evidence on 15 August 2024, which she failed to provide. She did not attend a preliminary hearing and had not been in contact with other parties.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, being satisfied that the claimant was not interested in pursuing the case and it was not being actively pursued. The related claim by C Ioannou continues.

Practical note

Claimants must actively engage with tribunal orders and attend hearings; failure to comply with orders, attend hearings, or maintain contact with parties may result in strike-out for non-pursuit even before the merits are considered.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 rule 38(1)(d)

Case details

Case number
3313772/2023
Decision date
6 January 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
local government
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No