Struck OutEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·22 May 2026

Employment Claims Struck Out for Inactive Pursuit

Case No. · Judge Franey

📌 In brief

Several workers' employment claims were dismissed by an Employment Tribunal because they did not actively pursue their cases as required. This highlights the importance of following procedural rules in legal proceedings.

⚖️ Legal holding

A claimant's failure to actively pursue their claims can result in them being struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

Topics

employmentprocedural

📖 Technical summary

The claims were struck out for lack of active pursuit.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Employment Tribunal struck out the claims of several workers against various fire authorities and the Secretary of State for the Home Department due to lack of active pursuit, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

Case Numbers: 2410542/2021 & others (see attached [APPELLANT])

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondents: [redacted]

2. [NAME]

3. [NAME]

4. [NAME]

5. Merseyside Fire & [NAME] 6. Secretary of State for the Home Department

JUDGMENT

The claims are struck out.

REASONS

1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimants on 26 March 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 had not been actively pursued.

2. The letters 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 claims under Rule 38 apply, and that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 to strike out the claims. This is because the claims have not been actively pursued.

4. The claims are therefore struck out.

Approved by: Regional Employment Judge Franey

23 April 2026

JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

29 April 2026 .....................................................................

..................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

[APPELLANT] nos Claimants Respondents 2410542/2021 Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410575/2021 Mr [NAME] [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410601/2021 Mr [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410602/2021 Mr [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410608/2021 Ms [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410609/2021 Mr [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410612/2021 Mr [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410628/2021 Mr [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410755/2021 Mr [NAME] [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410816/2021 Mr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410849/2021 Mr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410862/2021 Mr [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410885/2021 Mr [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410886/2021 Mr [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410924/2021 Ms [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department 2410929/2021 Mr [NAME] & [NAME] of State for the Home Department

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Struck Out12 cases

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

The claimant did not actively pursue their claims.
The claimant failed to comply with Employment Tribunal case management orders.
The claimant had less than two years of continuous employment.
The claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

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 several employment claims for lack of active pursuit.

Who was involved?

Workers and various fire authorities, along with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to strike out the claims based on Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claims were not actively pursued.

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 by the claimants was the central reason for striking out their claims.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the claimants.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

It means that failing to actively pursue a case can result in it being struck out, potentially preventing any resolution of the employment issues.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence or documents were mentioned as critical; the focus was on procedural compliance.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions such as these can often be appealed to a higher court within specified time limits.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is highly recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving employment claims and procedural issues.

Official source: Employment Tribunal — england-and-wales — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Employment Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.