VadeLab
Struck OutEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Employment Claims Struck Out for Non-Compliance

Case No. · Judge McLaren

📌 In brief

In this case, an Employment Tribunal decided to strike out multiple employment claims because the claimants did not follow a previous court order or actively pursue their cases. This means that the claims were dismissed without reaching a decision on the merits of the case.

⚖️ Legal holding

A claimant's failure to comply with a tribunal order or actively pursue their case can result in the claim being struck out.

Topics

employmenttribunal procedure

📖 Technical summary

The claims were struck out for non-compliance and lack of pursuit.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Employment Tribunal struck out several employment claims brought by the claimants against a cleaning company due to non-compliance with a previous order and lack of active pursuit.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

Case Number: 2303036/2023, 2307092/2023, 2301608/2024, 2301723/2024, 2302942/2024, 2302989/2024, 2303033/2024, 2306148/2024, 2306149/2024, 2306150/2024, 2306151/2024, 2302170/2024, 2302726/2024, 2302174/2024, 6016139/2024, 6016798/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

The claims are struck out.

REASONS

1. By a letter dated 7 June 2024 the Tribunal gave claimants an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claims should not be struck out because

• claimants had not complied with the Order of the Tribunal dated 7 June 2024.

• it has not been actively pursued.

2. The claimants have failed to make representations in writing, or failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The claim is therefore struck out.

Approved by:

Employment Judge McLaren

Date: 15 October 2025

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

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 does not have at least two years of continuous employment.
  • The claimant failed to comply with a tribunal order or actively pursue their case.
  • The claim has no reasonable prospect of success under the rules.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Employment Tribunal decided to strike out several employment claims.

Who was involved?

The claimants and a cleaning company were involved in these cases.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to strike out the claims because the claimants failed to comply with a previous order or actively pursue their cases.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were cited in this decision as it was procedural in nature.

What argument mattered most?

The lack of compliance and pursuit by the claimants was the central reason for striking out the 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?

If you do not comply with court orders or actively pursue your case, it may be struck out and dismissed.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence or documents were mentioned as the decision was procedural.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions of this nature can often be appealed to a higher court.

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.

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.