Martins v Tutela Jersey Limited: [2023] TRE 72

Action taken against the Respondent

During an interim hearing on 29^th July 2024, in an ongoing employment tribunal case concerning the claimant. The claimant is currently in custody having committed a criminal offence whilst employed by the Respondent. The tribunal addressed several significant procedural issues, including repeated non-compliance by the Respondent of previous tribunal orders. The tribunal sought to bring the case to a substantive hearing on the merits whilst ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.

The tribunal emphasised the overriding objective as set out in Article 2 of the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal (Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2016 (the Order), which requires cases to be handled fairly, justly and with minimal formality. The focus is on proportionality, avoidance of delay and cost-efficiency. Despite these guiding principles, the Respondent persistently failed to comply with tribunal orders which delayed the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had failed to adhere to several procedural orders in 2023. Such failures significantly delayed the progression of the case. The tribunal had initially deferred setting a hearing date pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the Claimant, with the expectation that both parties would comply with procedural orders in the interim.

After the conclusion of the Claimant’s criminal proceedings, the tribunal attempted to move the case forward in May 2024, scheduling a case management hearing in consultation with the prison authorities. However, no response was received from either party. In June 2024, the Tribunal scheduled an interim hearing for 8 July 2024, but the Respondent requested a postponement due to personal commitments. The interim hearing was rescheduled for 29 July 2024.

The Respondent appointed legal representation just three days before the hearing. At the hearing, the Respondent’s representative argued that the breaches were not serious, caused no prejudice and that the claimant was equally responsible for the delays. The tribunal rejected these submissions noting the lack of explanation or apology for the Respondent’s breaches and its prolonged non-compliance. Furthermore, the tribunal emphasised that the case had already been delayed for over a year, and the Respondent’s conduct was contrary to the overriding objective of the tribunal.

The tribunal determined that the Respondent’s persistent non-compliance warranted serious sanctions. After considering alternatives, the tribunal concluded that a fair trial would be impossible without interventions. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent’s response be struck out under Article 24(1)(b) and (c) of the Order citing the Respondent’s unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with previous orders of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal scheduled a substantive hearing to take place on 17-18^th October 2024. However, due to the response being struck out the Respondent is not severely limited in its participation at the final hearing.

Action Taken against the Claimant

Following the hearing on 29^th July 2024, the Claimant was ordered to disclose specific materials by 21 August 2024. Those documents related to her subsequent employment after leaving the Respondent. Despite receiving notices and full co-operation from the prison authorities, the Claimant failed to comply with the order. The Tribunal was informed of her non-compliance through a letter, received less than two days before the hearing.

In her letter, the Claimant cited mental health difficulties as the reason for her failure to comply, describing stress caused by court proceedings and the tribunal’s decision to strike out the Respondent’s response, which she described as overwhelming. However, the tribunal found that her reasoning did not adequately explain her failure to produce what was described as a ‘handful of papers,’ nor did she provide independent verification of her mental health claims.

The tribunal determined that the claimant’s failure to comply with the disclosure order was a serious breach, particularly considering her awareness of the tribunal’s prior emphasis on procedural compliance. The claimant had defaulted previously but have been given leniency. Given the tribunal’s clear directives and the importance of moving the case forward, her non-compliance further delayed the proceedings and undermined the overriding objective.

Considering this, the Respondent applied for the Claimant’s claim to be struck out. The Tribunal found in favour of the Respondent’s application, concluding that the Claimant’s breach was equally serious and unjustifiable. The result of the Claimant’s claim being struck out resulted in the case being closed.

Comment: This case demonstrates the serious consequences of procedural non-compliance in employment tribunal proceedings. Both parties were sanctioned for repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders, leading to the striking out of the Respondent’s defence and, subsequently, the Claimant’s claims. The tribunal has shown a commitment to enforcing the procedural rules to ensure cases proceed fairly and without undue delay.

Full Judgement Here and Here