December 13, 2024
Action taken against the Respondent
During an interim hearing on 29 July 2024, in an ongoing employment tribunal case, the Tribunal considered the position of the Respondent. The Claimant was, at that time, in custody, having committed a criminal offence whilst employed by the Respondent. The hearing addressed several significant procedural issues, including repeated non-compliance by the Respondent with previous tribunal orders. The Tribunal sought to progress the matter to a substantive hearing on the merits while ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.
The Tribunal emphasised the overriding objective 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 principles, the Respondent had persistently failed to comply with tribunal orders, causing delay to the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the Respondent failed to adhere to several procedural orders made in 2023, significantly delaying the progression of the case. The Tribunal had initially deferred setting a hearing date pending the outcome of the Claimant’s criminal proceedings, on the expectation that both parties would comply with procedural orders in the meantime.
Following the conclusion of the Claimant’s criminal proceedings, the Tribunal attempted to move the case forward in May 2024 by scheduling a case management hearing in consultation with the prison authorities. No response was received from either party. In June 2024, an interim hearing was scheduled for 8 July 2024, but the Respondent requested a postponement due to personal commitments. The hearing was therefore rescheduled for 29 July 2024.
The Respondent appointed legal representation just three days before the rescheduled hearing. At the hearing, the Respondent’s representative argued that the breaches were not serious, had caused no prejudice, and that the Claimant was equally responsible for the delays. The Tribunal rejected these submissions, noting the absence of any explanation or apology for the Respondent’s breaches and its prolonged non-compliance. The Tribunal further observed that the case had already been delayed for over a year and that the Respondent’s conduct was contrary to the overriding objective.
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s persistent non-compliance warranted serious sanctions. Having considered alternative options, it determined that a fair trial would be impossible without intervention. As a result, the Tribunal ordered that the Respondent’s response be struck out under Article 24(1)(b) and (c) of the Order, citing unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with previous tribunal orders.
A substantive hearing was listed for 17–18 October 2024. However, due to the response being struck out, the Respondent’s participation at the final hearing was severely limited.
Action taken against the Claimant
Following the hearing on 29 July 2024, the Claimant was ordered to disclose specific materials by 21 August 2024. These documents related to her subsequent employment after leaving the Respondent. Despite receiving notices and the full co-operation of the prison authorities, the Claimant failed to comply with the order. The Tribunal was informed of this non-compliance by 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 said was overwhelming. The Tribunal found that this explanation did not adequately justify her failure to produce what was described as a “handful of papers”, nor was any independent verification of her mental health claims provided.
The Tribunal determined that the Claimant’s failure to comply with the disclosure order was a serious breach, particularly given her awareness of the Tribunal’s prior emphasis on procedural compliance. Although the Claimant had previously defaulted, she had been afforded leniency. Her continued non-compliance further delayed the proceedings and undermined the overriding objective.
The Respondent applied for the Claimant’s claim to be struck out. The Tribunal upheld the application, finding that the Claimant’s breach was equally serious and unjustifiable. As a result, the Claimant’s claim was struck out and the case was closed.
Comment
This case illustrates the serious consequences of procedural non-compliance in employment tribunal proceedings. Both parties were sanctioned for repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders, resulting in the striking out of the Respondent’s defence and, subsequently, the Claimant’s claim. The Tribunal demonstrated a clear commitment to enforcing procedural rules to ensure cases proceed fairly and without undue delay.
Action taken against the Respondent
During an interim hearing on 29 July 2024, in an ongoing employment tribunal case, the Tribunal considered the position of the Respondent. The Claimant was, at that time, in custody, having committed a criminal offence whilst employed by the Respondent. The hearing addressed several significant procedural issues, including repeated non-compliance by the Respondent with previous tribunal orders. The Tribunal sought to progress the matter to a substantive hearing on the merits while ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.
The Tribunal emphasised the overriding objective 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 principles, the Respondent had persistently failed to comply with tribunal orders, causing delay to the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the Respondent failed to adhere to several procedural orders made in 2023, significantly delaying the progression of the case. The Tribunal had initially deferred setting a hearing date pending the outcome of the Claimant’s criminal proceedings, on the expectation that both parties would comply with procedural orders in the meantime.
Following the conclusion of the Claimant’s criminal proceedings, the Tribunal attempted to move the case forward in May 2024 by scheduling a case management hearing in consultation with the prison authorities. No response was received from either party. In June 2024, an interim hearing was scheduled for 8 July 2024, but the Respondent requested a postponement due to personal commitments. The hearing was therefore rescheduled for 29 July 2024.
The Respondent appointed legal representation just three days before the rescheduled hearing. At the hearing, the Respondent’s representative argued that the breaches were not serious, had caused no prejudice, and that the Claimant was equally responsible for the delays. The Tribunal rejected these submissions, noting the absence of any explanation or apology for the Respondent’s breaches and its prolonged non-compliance. The Tribunal further observed that the case had already been delayed for over a year and that the Respondent’s conduct was contrary to the overriding objective.
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s persistent non-compliance warranted serious sanctions. Having considered alternative options, it determined that a fair trial would be impossible without intervention. As a result, the Tribunal ordered that the Respondent’s response be struck out under Article 24(1)(b) and (c) of the Order, citing unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with previous tribunal orders.
A substantive hearing was listed for 17–18 October 2024. However, due to the response being struck out, the Respondent’s participation at the final hearing was severely limited.
Action taken against the Claimant
Following the hearing on 29 July 2024, the Claimant was ordered to disclose specific materials by 21 August 2024. These documents related to her subsequent employment after leaving the Respondent. Despite receiving notices and the full co-operation of the prison authorities, the Claimant failed to comply with the order. The Tribunal was informed of this non-compliance by 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 said was overwhelming. The Tribunal found that this explanation did not adequately justify her failure to produce what was described as a “handful of papers”, nor was any independent verification of her mental health claims provided.
The Tribunal determined that the Claimant’s failure to comply with the disclosure order was a serious breach, particularly given her awareness of the Tribunal’s prior emphasis on procedural compliance. Although the Claimant had previously defaulted, she had been afforded leniency. Her continued non-compliance further delayed the proceedings and undermined the overriding objective.
The Respondent applied for the Claimant’s claim to be struck out. The Tribunal upheld the application, finding that the Claimant’s breach was equally serious and unjustifiable. As a result, the Claimant’s claim was struck out and the case was closed.
Comment
This case illustrates the serious consequences of procedural non-compliance in employment tribunal proceedings. Both parties were sanctioned for repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders, resulting in the striking out of the Respondent’s defence and, subsequently, the Claimant’s claim. The Tribunal demonstrated a clear commitment to enforcing procedural rules to ensure cases proceed fairly and without undue delay.
Action taken against the Respondent
During an interim hearing on 29 July 2024, in an ongoing employment tribunal case, the Tribunal considered the position of the Respondent. The Claimant was, at that time, in custody, having committed a criminal offence whilst employed by the Respondent. The hearing addressed several significant procedural issues, including repeated non-compliance by the Respondent with previous tribunal orders. The Tribunal sought to progress the matter to a substantive hearing on the merits while ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.
The Tribunal emphasised the overriding objective 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 principles, the Respondent had persistently failed to comply with tribunal orders, causing delay to the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the Respondent failed to adhere to several procedural orders made in 2023, significantly delaying the progression of the case. The Tribunal had initially deferred setting a hearing date pending the outcome of the Claimant’s criminal proceedings, on the expectation that both parties would comply with procedural orders in the meantime.
Following the conclusion of the Claimant’s criminal proceedings, the Tribunal attempted to move the case forward in May 2024 by scheduling a case management hearing in consultation with the prison authorities. No response was received from either party. In June 2024, an interim hearing was scheduled for 8 July 2024, but the Respondent requested a postponement due to personal commitments. The hearing was therefore rescheduled for 29 July 2024.
The Respondent appointed legal representation just three days before the rescheduled hearing. At the hearing, the Respondent’s representative argued that the breaches were not serious, had caused no prejudice, and that the Claimant was equally responsible for the delays. The Tribunal rejected these submissions, noting the absence of any explanation or apology for the Respondent’s breaches and its prolonged non-compliance. The Tribunal further observed that the case had already been delayed for over a year and that the Respondent’s conduct was contrary to the overriding objective.
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s persistent non-compliance warranted serious sanctions. Having considered alternative options, it determined that a fair trial would be impossible without intervention. As a result, the Tribunal ordered that the Respondent’s response be struck out under Article 24(1)(b) and (c) of the Order, citing unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with previous tribunal orders.
A substantive hearing was listed for 17–18 October 2024. However, due to the response being struck out, the Respondent’s participation at the final hearing was severely limited.
Action taken against the Claimant
Following the hearing on 29 July 2024, the Claimant was ordered to disclose specific materials by 21 August 2024. These documents related to her subsequent employment after leaving the Respondent. Despite receiving notices and the full co-operation of the prison authorities, the Claimant failed to comply with the order. The Tribunal was informed of this non-compliance by 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 said was overwhelming. The Tribunal found that this explanation did not adequately justify her failure to produce what was described as a “handful of papers”, nor was any independent verification of her mental health claims provided.
The Tribunal determined that the Claimant’s failure to comply with the disclosure order was a serious breach, particularly given her awareness of the Tribunal’s prior emphasis on procedural compliance. Although the Claimant had previously defaulted, she had been afforded leniency. Her continued non-compliance further delayed the proceedings and undermined the overriding objective.
The Respondent applied for the Claimant’s claim to be struck out. The Tribunal upheld the application, finding that the Claimant’s breach was equally serious and unjustifiable. As a result, the Claimant’s claim was struck out and the case was closed.
Comment
This case illustrates the serious consequences of procedural non-compliance in employment tribunal proceedings. Both parties were sanctioned for repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders, resulting in the striking out of the Respondent’s defence and, subsequently, the Claimant’s claim. The Tribunal demonstrated a clear commitment to enforcing procedural rules to ensure cases proceed fairly and without undue delay.
Action taken against the Respondent
During an interim hearing on 29 July 2024, in an ongoing employment tribunal case, the Tribunal considered the position of the Respondent. The Claimant was, at that time, in custody, having committed a criminal offence whilst employed by the Respondent. The hearing addressed several significant procedural issues, including repeated non-compliance by the Respondent with previous tribunal orders. The Tribunal sought to progress the matter to a substantive hearing on the merits while ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.
The Tribunal emphasised the overriding objective 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 principles, the Respondent had persistently failed to comply with tribunal orders, causing delay to the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the Respondent failed to adhere to several procedural orders made in 2023, significantly delaying the progression of the case. The Tribunal had initially deferred setting a hearing date pending the outcome of the Claimant’s criminal proceedings, on the expectation that both parties would comply with procedural orders in the meantime.
Following the conclusion of the Claimant’s criminal proceedings, the Tribunal attempted to move the case forward in May 2024 by scheduling a case management hearing in consultation with the prison authorities. No response was received from either party. In June 2024, an interim hearing was scheduled for 8 July 2024, but the Respondent requested a postponement due to personal commitments. The hearing was therefore rescheduled for 29 July 2024.
The Respondent appointed legal representation just three days before the rescheduled hearing. At the hearing, the Respondent’s representative argued that the breaches were not serious, had caused no prejudice, and that the Claimant was equally responsible for the delays. The Tribunal rejected these submissions, noting the absence of any explanation or apology for the Respondent’s breaches and its prolonged non-compliance. The Tribunal further observed that the case had already been delayed for over a year and that the Respondent’s conduct was contrary to the overriding objective.
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s persistent non-compliance warranted serious sanctions. Having considered alternative options, it determined that a fair trial would be impossible without intervention. As a result, the Tribunal ordered that the Respondent’s response be struck out under Article 24(1)(b) and (c) of the Order, citing unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with previous tribunal orders.
A substantive hearing was listed for 17–18 October 2024. However, due to the response being struck out, the Respondent’s participation at the final hearing was severely limited.
Action taken against the Claimant
Following the hearing on 29 July 2024, the Claimant was ordered to disclose specific materials by 21 August 2024. These documents related to her subsequent employment after leaving the Respondent. Despite receiving notices and the full co-operation of the prison authorities, the Claimant failed to comply with the order. The Tribunal was informed of this non-compliance by 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 said was overwhelming. The Tribunal found that this explanation did not adequately justify her failure to produce what was described as a “handful of papers”, nor was any independent verification of her mental health claims provided.
The Tribunal determined that the Claimant’s failure to comply with the disclosure order was a serious breach, particularly given her awareness of the Tribunal’s prior emphasis on procedural compliance. Although the Claimant had previously defaulted, she had been afforded leniency. Her continued non-compliance further delayed the proceedings and undermined the overriding objective.
The Respondent applied for the Claimant’s claim to be struck out. The Tribunal upheld the application, finding that the Claimant’s breach was equally serious and unjustifiable. As a result, the Claimant’s claim was struck out and the case was closed.
Comment
This case illustrates the serious consequences of procedural non-compliance in employment tribunal proceedings. Both parties were sanctioned for repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders, resulting in the striking out of the Respondent’s defence and, subsequently, the Claimant’s claim. The Tribunal demonstrated a clear commitment to enforcing procedural rules to ensure cases proceed fairly and without undue delay.