Claimant v Secretary of State for Defence
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) due to claimant's repeated and unexplained failure to comply with multiple tribunal orders requiring further and better particulars of her case, despite being represented by solicitors. Fair hearing was not possible in the listed window as disclosure incomplete and no evidence prepared.
Claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) due to claimant's repeated and unexplained failure to comply with multiple tribunal orders requiring further and better particulars of discrimination allegations dating back to 2018-2020, causing significant prejudice to respondent. No lesser sanction was proportionate on the first day of what should have been the final hearing.
Claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for repeated non-compliance with orders to particularise harassment allegations. Claimant provided no adequate explanation despite judicial warnings, and final hearing could not proceed fairly as scheduled.
Claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) due to claimant's failure to provide particulars as ordered. Despite orders made from July 2023, full compliance only attempted on 20 March 2024, leaving insufficient time before April 2024 final hearing.
Facts
Claimant brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation against the Ministry of Defence. Despite being represented by solicitors, she repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders made from July 2023 onwards requiring further and better particulars of her discrimination allegations. Orders were made on at least five occasions, including an unless order in March 2024. She only provided purported full compliance on 20 March 2024, less than one month before the scheduled 5-day final hearing in April 2024. The case was not ready for hearing, with disclosure incomplete and no evidence prepared.
Decision
Employment Judge Abbott struck out all claims under Rule 37(1)(c) for repeated non-compliance with tribunal orders. The judge found the magnitude of default was high, no adequate explanation was provided despite the claimant being represented, and a fair trial in the listed window was impossible. The earliest alternative hearing date would have been September 2025, causing prejudice to the respondent given many allegations dated back to 2018-2020. The judge also awarded costs of £2,200 against the claimant under Rules 76(1)(a) and 76(2) for unreasonable conduct.
Practical note
Represented parties must comply with case management orders in a timely manner and provide explanations if unable to do so; repeated unexplained non-compliance will result in strike-out even where this deprives a claimant of their substantive claims, particularly where delay causes significant prejudice and the hearing window cannot be preserved.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302176/2023
- Decision date
- 15 April 2024
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- military
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor