Ms N Nahar v Treehouse Nursery School Ltd: 6021444/2025
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out.REASONS
[1]A preliminary hearing was listed in this case on 17 November 2025.[2]At 12:41 on the day of this hearing, the Claimant emailed the Tribunal, copying in the Respondent: ‘Hope you are well. I have a hearing today scheduled at 2.00pm17/11/2025. Unfortunately I am not for well for last few days and unable to seat [sic]. I tried to inform over phone but couldn’t reach anyone. Considering this situation I am requesting you to postpone the hearing time and give me another hearing date. Sorry for the inconvenience.’[3]Any application for a postponement of a hearing should be made in good time before the hearing and should be accompanied by medical evidence. There was no explanation as to why the email was sent so late. The Respondent attended with its representative, Ms English; the Tribunal had set aside two hours for a preliminary hearing; the hearing was not effective, which was as a waste of time, costs and judicial recources. I had no alternative other than to postpone the hearing.[4]I made the following orders: Case Number: 6021444/2025 ‘By 1 December 2025, the Claimant shall write to the Tribunal, copying in the Respondent, explaining in detail why she did not attend the preliminary hearing today and providing medical evidence supporting her assertion that she was not fit to do so. If she does not do so, a Judge will consider striking her case out for failure actively to pursue it. Also by 1 December 2025, the Claimant shall send to the Tribunal a schedule of loss, which shall identify any outstanding holiday pay she says she is owed and how she has calculated that figure. Also by 1 December 2025, the Claimant shall clarify whether she is alleging that any failure to pay holiday pay was an act of pregnancy/maternity discrimination and, if so, on what basis.’[5]The Claimant did not comply with any of those orders.[6]I am satisfied that the Claimant has failed actively to pursue her claim. I have reminded myself of the discussion of the use of the power to strike out for that reason in the case of Rolls Royce plc v Riddle [2008] IRLR 873, in particular at [18–19].[7]I have concluded that the Claimant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s orders is both deliberate and contumelious (disrespectful to the Tribunal).[8]Further, there is no basis on which I could conclude that the Claimant would alter her approach to the litigation, were I to permit the proceedings to continue. It is not proportionate for further Tribunal resources, administrative or judicial, to be assigned to dealing with this case, nor would it be just to the Respondent or to other litigants who are awaiting the timely determination of their own cases. A fair trial is no longer possible.[9]Accordingly, the case is struck out.[10]The hearing on 1 April 2026 is vacated (cancelled).