Claimant v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(e) because the claimant failed to prepare or serve any witness statement, making a fair trial impossible. The claimant had no reasonable excuse for non-compliance despite multiple clear directions and warnings from the tribunal and explanations from the respondent's solicitors.
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(e) because without a witness statement from the claimant, the tribunal could not assess whether he had provided evidence sufficient to shift the burden of proof on discrimination, and the respondent could not fairly prepare its case or cross-examination. The claimant had been given two deadlines and multiple warnings but failed to comply.
Facts
The claimant, a security guard, brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination. A case management order on 26 May 2023 required exchange of witness statements by 1 September 2023. The claimant failed to prepare any witness statement, including his own, by that deadline or by a revised deadline of 5 October 2023. The respondent's solicitors repeatedly explained to the claimant that he needed to prepare his own statement. The tribunal warned the claimant on 3 October that his claim was at risk of being struck out. At the final hearing on 11-12 October 2023, the claimant still had no witness statement and claimed he did not know he needed one.
Decision
The tribunal granted the respondent's strike-out application under Rule 37(1)(e). The tribunal found that the claimant had no reasonable excuse for failing to prepare his witness statement despite clear orders, explanations, and warnings. Without a witness statement, a fair trial was not possible within the scheduled hearing window because the respondent could not fairly prepare its case or cross-examination, and critical evidential functions could not be fulfilled. The tribunal concluded that strike-out was a proportionate response.
Practical note
A litigant in person's failure to comply with clear, repeated case management orders on witness statements can result in strike-out where it makes a fair trial impossible, even if the litigant claims not to have understood the requirement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200504/2023
- Decision date
- 6 August 2024
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- security guard
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No