EAT Upholds Strike-Out of 3 Employment Claims Over Misleading Tribunal

1 articles · Updated · vwv.co.uk · May 21

Three claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination remained struck out after the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s appeal.
The EAT said the tribunal was entitled to use the exceptional sanction because it found the claimant had deliberately misled it about a supposed medical appointment and had intentionally failed to comply with case-management orders.
Extensions of time and reasonable adjustments had already been granted for the claimant’s health conditions, but he still failed to provide ordered particulars in the required format and did not produce evidence of the appointment when asked.
The appeal court rejected arguments that the tribunal skipped the two-stage strike-out test, ignored proportionality or failed to consider later compliance, saying it had weighed fairness, prejudice to the council and wasted tribunal resources.
The ruling underscores that strike-out remains rare but can be justified where parties deceive tribunals or seriously disregard procedure, giving employers a basis to document missed deadlines and inconsistent explanations.

How can employers prove a claimant is deliberately deceiving the court, not just struggling with procedural rules?

When does a claimant's lie to a court justify dismissing their entire case, regardless of its potential merits?