Nestle UK Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant's case was struck out due to wholesale and sustained non-compliance with tribunal orders, specifically failure to exchange witness statements despite multiple extensions and warnings. The tribunal found the claimant had conducted the proceedings unreasonably and failed actively to pursue the case, making a fair trial impossible. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's legal costs of £12,606.

The claim was struck out because the claimant engaged in wholesale and sustained non-compliance with tribunal orders to exchange witness statements over many months, failed to respond to repeated emails and telephone calls, and showed no intention to engage with the strike-out application, making a fair trial no longer possible and wasting tribunal resources.

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

• •failure to comply with tribunal orders
• •unreasonable conduct of proceedings
• •failure to actively pursue case
• •non-exchange of witness statements
• •failure to engage with strike-out application
• •fairness of trial no longer possible

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M. Sheppard Respondent: Nestle UK Ltd JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that: - 1. the Claimant’s case is struck out (1) because he has failed to comply with Tribunal orders (2) because he has conducted the proceedings unreasonably and (3) because he has failed actively to pursue his case; 2. he shall pay to the Respondent the amount of £12,606 in respect of its legal costs. REASONS Background to the application 1. By an order dated 19 March 2026, sent to the parties on 20 March 2026. I made an unless order providing for the automatic dismissal of the claim if the Claimant did not, by 27 March 2026, explain his non-attendance at the hearing on that date with supporting medical evidence. 2. Further, I warned the Claimant that I was considering striking his case out on the grounds of repeated non-compliance with Tribunal orders, unreasonable conduct of the proceedings, failure actively to pursue the case, and that a fair trial was no longer possible. 3. I gave the Claimant an opportunity to make written representations on the Respondent’s applications for a strike-out and for its costs by 16 April 2026; I gave him an opportunity to provide evidence of his means; I was clear that I intended to deal with both applications on the papers and that, if he did not make representations, the applications would still be decided. 4. I set out my reasons for making these orders in the order. I reproduce those reasons here for convenience: 2 1. The claim form was presented on 18 March 2024, after an ACAS early conciliation period between 12 January 2024 and 23 February 2024. 2. There was a preliminary hearing on 29 July 2024 before EJ Housego. At that hearing the Judge clarified the nature and scope of the Claimant’s claims, refused the Respondent’s applications for strike-out and for a deposit order and made detailed ca…