[2026] EAT 66Appeal outcome unclearStruck out

Surrey County Council

12 May 2026·Employment Appeal Tribunal·England & Wales·Employment Judge Andrew Burns KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court

Respondent

Surrey County Council

All cases →

Decision date

12 May 2026

Tribunal

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Jurisdiction

England & Wales

Judge

Employment Judge Andrew Burns KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court

Case Summary

The claimant, employed as a project manager by Surrey County Council's Fire and Rescue Service, claimed constructive dismissal based on protected disclosures and disability discrimination. The employment tribunal struck out his claim after finding he had deliberately misled the tribunal about medical reasons for failing to comply with orders to provide particulars. The EAT upheld the strike-out, finding the tribunal had properly applied the two-stage test and was entitled in exceptional circumstances to strike out the claim where there was intentional and contumelious default.

Why this outcome?

Non-compliance with orders

The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision because the tribunal had properly applied the two-stage test for striking out, had exercised its discretion appropriately, and was entitled in exceptional circumstances to strike out where the claimant was found guilty of intentional and contumelious default in failing to progress his claim and it would not be fair and just to allow continued access to the tribunal's system of public justice.

Related claim guides

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

Key Issues

  • Whether the employment tribunal correctly applied the two-stage test for striking out a claim on grounds it is not being actively pursued
  • Whether the claimant deliberately misled the tribunal about medical reasons for non-compliance with orders
  • Whether striking out was a proportionate remedy for intentional and contumelious default
  • Whether the claimant's late substantial compliance should have been taken into account

Original published judgment

The full source document is available from the official publication page.

Something doesn't look right?

Report a wrong claim type, outcome, summary, or award.