Tribunal strike out upheld where claimant deliberately misled the Employment Tribunal

Background

In the case of Tedd v Surrey County Council, the claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination following the end of his fixed-term employment with the respondent council.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to provide further particulars of his claims in a specified format. Although extensions of time and reasonable adjustments were granted because of the claimant’s health conditions, he failed properly to comply with the order. He also claimed that a medical appointment prevented him from attending part of a preliminary hearing, but failed to produce evidence of the appointment when requested.

At a subsequent strike out hearing, the Tribunal concluded that no such appointment existed and that the claimant had deliberately misled both the Tribunal and the respondent. It also found that he had intentionally failed to comply with Tribunal orders and had shown disrespect for the Tribunal process. The claims were struck out on the basis that they had not been actively pursued.

EAT decision

The EAT dismissed the claimant’s appeal.

The claimant argued that the Tribunal had failed properly to apply the two-stage test for strike out, had not adequately considered proportionality or alternative sanctions, and had failed to take account of his later compliance with the order to provide further particulars.

The EAT rejected those arguments. It held that the Tribunal had properly considered both whether the threshold for strike out was met and whether it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to strike out the claims. It had also correctly considered fairness to both parties, the prejudice caused to the respondent and the waste of Tribunal resources.

Importantly, the EAT stressed that this was not simply a case of procedural delay or non-compliance. The Tribunal had found that the claimant deliberately misled the Tribunal about the reasons for failing properly to engage with the proceedings. In those exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that strike out was justified.

Learning points for employers

This decision demonstrates that Employment Tribunals can impose severe sanctions where parties deliberately mislead the Tribunal or show serious disregard for Tribunal procedures. Although strike out remains an exceptional remedy, employers defending claims should carefully document procedural failings, missed deadlines and inconsistent explanations given during proceedings. The case also underlines the importance Tribunals place on compliance with case management orders and the efficient use of Tribunal resources.

For more information please contact Lucy Cinnamond in our Employment Team.