Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because it was not being actively pursued. The claimant did not respond to correspondence, did not comply with case management orders, and failed to attend two hearings. The tribunal concluded the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and possibly was not even aware of it having been submitted on her behalf by a former colleague.
Facts
The claim was submitted on the claimant's behalf by a former colleague as part of a multiple claim. The colleague provided last known contact details for the claimant but was no longer directly in touch with her. The claimant did not respond to correspondence about the case, did not comply with case management orders, and failed to attend two hearings including the preliminary hearing on 7 June 2024.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the grounds that it was not being actively pursued. The tribunal found it doubtful whether the claimant even knew about the claim and concluded that striking out was the only appropriate course of action.
Practical note
Claims can be struck out for non-pursuit where a claimant fails to engage with tribunal correspondence, case management orders, and hearings, even if the claim was initially submitted on their behalf by a third party.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2409589/2023
- Decision date
- 7 June 2024
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- East 45 Limited
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No