Claim Struck Out for Not Following Court Orders

OUTCOME: Struck Out

Case No: 6011316/2025

10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Bristol Employment Tribunal (by video) On:13 February 2026

Before: Employment Judge Bradford

Representation Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]

1. The Claimant’s claim is struck out in accordance with Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders.

REASONS

1. By claim form filed on 2 April 2025 the [APPELLANT], a [NAME], brought claims for arrears of pay and holiday pay. He stated he was owed £1,000.

2. The Respondent filed a response on 11 June 2025 which stated that there had been some mix-up with day and night rates, but that had been rectified the following week. The Respondent accepted, on reviewing its calculations, that the Claimant was owed the sum of £72.33.

3. The Tribunal wrote to the Claimant on 19 August 2025 asking whether payment of this sum would resolve his claim. If not, he was to say why and set out his calculations of the sum he said was owed, by 26 August 2025. A reminder was sent to the Claimant on 8 September when he did not reply.

4. Thereafter the Respondent made a strike out application as the [APPELLANT] had failed to comply with the Tribunal’s direction.

Case No: 6011316/2025

10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62

5. On 29 October 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the [APPELLANT] saying he must respond to the Tribunal’s question and the Respondent’s application by 5 November. He did not do so. However on 1 December the [APPELLANT] contacted the Tribunal saying he had not received the earlier correspondence. He requested his claim was not struck out. He did not however provide any information or calculation in relation to the sum he says is owed.

6. The Claimant was again told to provide that calculation, and revised directions were sent on 5 January 2026. The Claimant did not provide any calculation and on 15 January the Respondent made a further strike out application. On 29 January the Tribunal ordered that if the [APPELLANT] did not comply with the Tribunal’s case management orders by 3 February 2026, his claim would be struck out. The [APPELLANT] emailed the Tribunal on 30 January to say he had complied with the orders. However he did not provide the requested calculation.

7. The [APPELLANT] did not attend the hearing today. I was satisfied that he has received the Tribunal’s correspondence, sent via the portal, in view of his emails of 1 December 2025 and 30 January 2026. The Claimant was sent a notice of hearing on 8 September 2025 and was sent the joining link the day before the hearing. Calls were made to the Claimant on the morning of the hearing but were unanswered and there was no voicemail.

8. Mr [RESPONDENT] renewed the Respondent’s strike out application in these circumstances. He submitted that Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules permits the matter to be dealt with in the Claimant’s absence. He submitted that the claim should be struck out due to the Claimant’s non-compliance with directions. He referenced the history and in particular the Tribunal’s correspondence of 29 January 2026, namely that the case would be struck out if the Claimant did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions by 3 February.

9. In view of the history, I was satisfied that the Claimant was aware of the hearing and had decided not to attend. I was further satisfied that the Claimant has repeatedly failed to comply with any of the tribunal’s case management orders, and noted that he has received a strike out warning. In these circumstances, balancing fairness to the Respondent against the interests of the Claimant, and the need for finality in litigation, I exercised my discretion to strike out the claim. In doing so I had regard to the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly, and avoiding delay.

Case No: 6011316/2025

10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62

_____________________________________

Employment Judge Bradford

Date: 13 February 2026

JUDGMENT & REASONS SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 7 March 2026

[NAME]

FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

Case No. 6011316/2025

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

The judgment of the tribunal is that the Claimant’s application for reconsideration is refused because there is no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked.

REASONS

1. The claimant has applied for a reconsideration of the judgment dated 13 February 2026 which was sent to the parties on 7 March 2026 (“the Judgment”). The grounds are set out in his email dated 18 March 2026.

2. The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“the Rules”) provide at Rule 69 that an application for reconsideration under Rule 70 must be made within 14 days of the date on which the decision (or, if later, the written reasons) were sent to the parties. The application was therefore received within the relevant time limit.

3. The grounds for reconsideration are only those set out in Rule 68, namely that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.

4. The grounds relied upon by the claimant are these:

5. His non-compliance with the Tribunal’s orders was not deliberate. The Tribunal’s emails were diverted by his computer to his spam folder. As such he did not see the Tribunal’s communications at the time they were sent and only became aware of deadlines after they had passed. He was not aware of the hearing or that his claim was at risk of being struck out. He says he acted promptly once he became aware of the situation.

Case No. 6011316/2025

2

6. The matters raised by the claimant were considered in the light of his conduct as set out in the strike out judgment. It is notable that the Claimant, notwithstanding the issue he refers to with emails being diverted, was able to request reconsideration within the required 14 day period. He was aware, and had been since at least 1 December 2025, that emails were being sent to his spam inbox. He could have either taken steps to prevent this (for example, by adding the address to trusted senders or similar) or ensure that he regularly checked his spam inbox. It was his responsibility to deal with the issue once he became aware of it.

7. It is apparent from the Claimant’s email of 1 December 2025 that he had seen his claim was at risk of being struck out as he requested that this step was not taken. Beyond that, he failed to deal with outstanding matters. The fact he again contacted the Tribunal on 30 January 2026 indicates that he was aware of the further strike out warning sent on 29 January 2026 and what he had to do to avoid strike out. He nevertheless again failed to comply with the Tribunal’s order.

8. It follows that, contrary to the Claimant’s assertion in his application for reconsideration, his non-compliance was indeed deliberate. Despite seeing, on occasion belatedly, the Tribunal’s correspondence, he repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders. He was aware his claim was at risk of being struck out.

9. It is in the public interest that there should be finality in litigation, and the interests of justice apply to both sides.

10. Accordingly I refuse the application for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 70(2) because there is no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked.

Employment Judge Bradford Date: 28 April 2026

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

30 April 2026