Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the case because the claimant did not actively pursue their claims as required by procedural rules. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to court deadlines and requirements.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claim may be struck out if it is not actively pursued, in accordance with the overriding objective.
📖 Technical summary
The claims were struck out for lack of active pursuit under Rule 38.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal struck out the claims of the claimants due to lack of active pursuit, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case Number: 2402708/2020, 2402860/20 & 2402910/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
[NAME]
Respondent: [redacted] [COMPANY] [COMPANY]
The claims are struck out.
REASONS
1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimants on 6 May 2026 warning them that the Tribunal was considering striking out the claims. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claims have not been actively pursued.
2. The letter gave the claimants an opportunity to explain why the claims should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so. The claimants have not replied.
3. I am satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claim under Rule 38 apply, and that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 to strike out the claim. This is because the claims have not been actively pursued
4. The claims are therefore struck out.
Approved by: Employment Judge M [NAME]
28 May 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
3 June 2026 .....................................................................
..................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Claimant’s Employment Tribunal Case Struck Out for Inactivity
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claims Due to Lack of Serv…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claims Struck Out for Inactive Pursuit
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Case for Procedural Failures
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Race Discrimination Claim for Lack of Qualify…
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out: Non-Compliance and Unreasonable Conduct
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claims Struck Out Due to No Reasonable Prospect of Success
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Complaint Due to Short Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Insufficient …
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out for Insufficient Service
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A claimant does not have at least two years of continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
- The claim has no reasonable prospect of success due to factors like territorial jurisdiction or employee status.
- The claimant fails to comply with tribunal orders or actively pursue the case.
- The claim is not actively pursued, leading to it being struck out under Rule 38.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal struck out the claims for lack of active pursuit.
Who was involved?
A claimant and an employer were involved in the case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the claims because they were not actively pursued as required by Rule 38.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 was applied.
What argument mattered most?
The lack of active pursuit of claims under procedural rules was the key reason for striking out the case.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a similar situation should ensure they actively pursue their claims to avoid having them struck out.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence or documents were mentioned as critical; adherence to procedural rules was the focus.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions can often be appealed, but it depends on the circumstances and whether there are grounds for appeal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.