Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Case for Procedural Failures
📌 In brief
In this employment dispute, the Employment Tribunal decided to strike out the respondent's case because they did not follow an earlier court order and failed to actively pursue their case. This decision emphasises the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings.
⚖️ Legal holding
A failure to comply with a tribunal order or actively pursue a case can result in it being struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
📖 Technical summary
The Employment Tribunal struck out the respondent's response due to non-compliance and lack of pursuit.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal struck out the respondent's case due to non-compliance with a previous order and lack of active pursuit, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case Number: 3312400/2023 3303715/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
The response is struck out.
REASONS
1. The Tribunal wrote to the respondent on 25 November 2026 warning them that the Tribunal was considering striking out the response. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that
the respondent had not complied with the Order of the Tribunal dated 19 September 2025. The response has not been actively pursued.
2. The letter gave the respondent an opportunity to explain why the response should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so. The respondent has not replied.
3. I am satisfied that the grounds for striking out the response under Rule 38 apply, and that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 to strike out the response.
4. The response is therefore struck out. The respondent will be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but will only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Approved by:
Regional Employment Judge Foxwell
Date: 9 February 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
20 April 2026 .....................................................................
..................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out: Non-Compliance and Unreasonable Conduct
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Race Discrimination Claim for Lack of Qualify…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claims Due to Lack of Serv…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Insufficient …
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Complaint Due to Short Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Discrimination Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claims Struck Out for Non-Compliance
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out for Insufficient Service
- Employment Tribunal Respondents' Case Struck Out for Non-Compliance with Tribunal Orders
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Redundancy Payment Claim for Missing Step
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 comply with a tribunal order.
- The claimant failed to actively pursue their case.
- The claimant had less than two years of continuous employment.
- The claimant's conduct was unreasonable.
- The claim lacked reasonable prospects 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 decided to strike out the respondent's case.
Who was involved?
A claimant and a respondent, likely an employer or company.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court applied Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the respondent failed to comply with a previous order and did not actively pursue their case.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 was applied.
What argument mattered most?
The lack of compliance with procedural requirements was the central issue.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the respondent, not in favour of the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a similar situation should ensure they comply with all procedural requirements and actively pursue their case to avoid having it struck out.
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?
Decisions of this nature can typically be appealed, but the specifics depend on the circumstances and applicable rules.
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.