Mr M Siegieda v London Borough of Hounslow and Cavendish Primary School: 2217705/2023
JUDGMENT
Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 The claim is struck out on the grounds that:[1]The Claimant has not complied with an order of the Tribunal.[2]The claim has not been actively pursued.REASONS
[1]The claim was originally listed for hearing over 5 days commencing on 1 November 2024. The hearing was subsequently postponed and re-listed for 5 days commencing on 9 January 2025 and again for 5 days commencing on 20 October 2025.[2]The Tribunal’s case management orders included an order that witness statements be exchanged by 14 October 2024.[3]On 22 September 2025 the Respondents wrote to the Tribunal stating that, despite their having been ready to exchange witness statements for some months, the Claimant had not replied to their correspondence seeking a date for exchange. The Respondents applied for an order striking out the claim, or in the alternative an unless order.[4]The Tribunal wrote to the Claimant on 2 October 2025 directing him to send any objection to the Respondent’s application by 8 October 2025 and stating that in the absence of a reply the Tribunal would determine the application without further reference to him. Case Number: 2217705/2023[5]The Claimant has not replied to the Tribunal’s letter, and on 9 October 2025 the Respondents confirmed that they had not received any objection to the application.[6]I have considered whether I should strike out the claim or whether some lesser sanction (in particular, an unless order) would be a feasible alternative. An unless order would necessarily involve the Claimant being given some time to comply with it. Even if this were as little as 24 hours from receipt of a letter sent today, I find it unlikely that a fair trial could take place commencing on 20 October 2025. The parties would have 3 working days, or less if the letter were not sent immediately, to prepare for a 5-day full hearing. I find it unlikely that an effective hearing could take place in those circumstances. Given this, and the lack of explanation for the Claimant’s default, I have concluded that the claim should be struck out.