Respondents' Case Struck Out for Non-Compliance with Tribunal Orders
📌 In brief
In this employment law case, the Employment Tribunal decided to strike out the respondents' responses because they failed to comply with court orders and did not actively pursue their case. This highlights the need for parties to follow tribunal procedures carefully.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must comply with Employment Tribunal Orders or risk having their response struck out.
📖 Technical summary
The Employment Tribunal struck out the respondents' responses due to non-compliance and lack of pursuit.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge struck out the respondents' responses due to their repeated non-compliance with Tribunal orders and failure to attend a hearing, as well as their lack of pursuit of the case. The decision emphasises the importance of adhering to procedural requirements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case Number: 6003629/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] 2. [COMPANY], 3. [COMPANY] 4. [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 5. Mrs [NAME]
The response is struck out.
REASONS
1. The Tribunal wrote to the respondents on 23 April 2026 warning them that the Tribunal was considering striking out the responses. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 and/or 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that
The respondents failed to attend the hearing on 4 December 2025.
The respondents failed to comply with the Orders of the Tribunal made on 4 December 2025 and that dated 23 April 2026.
The responses were not being actively pursued.
2. The letter gave the respondents an opportunity to explain why the response should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so. The respondents have 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. This is because the respondents have repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to comply with Tribunal Orders and to pursue their response actively, despite being warned of the consequences. They have thereby wasted judicial and Tribunal resources and have acted unreasonably.
4. The responses of all respondents are therefore struck out. The respondents 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.
5. The hearing listed on 13 to 15 July 2026 will proceed but will be reduced to a 1-day hearing commencing on 13 July 2026. The hearing is converted to a Rule 22 hearing at which the claimant will be required to prove the identity of the correct respondent and to prove her claims against it. If the claims succeed, the Judge will consider making Orders for compensation.
6. The claimant must continue to comply with the directions relation to the production of a bundle of documents and a witness statement. She is no longer required to cooperate with the respondents to agree the bundle but must serve the Bundle and her statement on the Tribunal and the Respondent 21 days before the date of the final hearing. The [NAME] of 4 December 2025 are varied accordingly.
Approved by:
Employment Judge Midgley
Date: 14 May 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 2 June 2026
[NAME] FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Case for Procedural Failures
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Claimant’s Case Based on Valid Settlement A…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Race Discrimination Claim for Lack of Qualify…
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out: Non-Compliance and Unreasonable Conduct
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Discrimination Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- 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 Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Insufficient …
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claims Due to Lack of Serv…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Ser…
- 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 Employment Tribunal Orders.
- The claimant had less than two years of continuous employment.
- The case had no reasonable prospect of success.
- The claimant failed to notify Acas for early conciliation.
- The claimant did not pay a required deposit.
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 respondents' response due to non-compliance with its orders.
Who was involved?
A claimant and multiple respondents, including dental clinics and individuals.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that striking out was appropriate because the respondents repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue their case.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws were cited; the decision focused on procedural rules of the Employment Tribunal.
What argument mattered most?
The central reasoning was that the respondents' repeated non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure to attend a hearing warranted striking out their response.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision is against the respondents, not in favour of the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Parties must strictly adhere to tribunal orders and actively pursue their cases to avoid having their responses struck out.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The court relied on the respondents' failure to comply with previous orders and attend hearings.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions can often be appealed, but it depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.