Class One Traffic Management Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were struck out following his failure to comply with tribunal orders and non-attendance at the preliminary hearing. The claimant had not provided required medical records, details of his disability claim, or responses to the respondent's counterclaim. The respondent's contract claim for £2,192.60 in respect of van damage was granted by default.

The claim was struck out because the claimant had failed to actively pursue his claim, did not comply with detailed orders from the preliminary hearing, failed to attend the hearing on 18 February 2026 despite being contacted by telephone, and had not provided substantive engagement with the tribunal process including failure to provide medical records or proper specification of his disability discrimination claim.

• •Whether claim should be struck out for non-pursuit
• •Claimant's lack of two years qualifying service for unfair dismissal claim
• •Disability discrimination claim lacking proper specification
• •Claimant's failure to comply with preliminary hearing orders

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No:4100743/2025 5 Held in Glasgow via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 18 February 2026 Employment Judge I McFatridge Mr Jamie Shanks Claimant 10 Not present and Not represented 15Class One Traffic Management Ltd Respondent Represented by: Mr A Farooq - Solicitor JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 20The Judgment of the Tribunal is: 1. The claim is struck out in terms of rule 38 (1) (d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. 2. Given that the claimant has not submitted a response to the employer’s contract claim, the employer’s contract claim is granted. The claimant shall 25pay to the respondent the sum of £2192.60 in respect thereof. REASONS Introduction 1. The claimant submitted a claim to the Tribunal in which he claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent. In his ET1 claim form, he 30also ticked the box for disability discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. The only details provided of these claims was that he stated “they have unfairly kept my last wage for van damage done when I was sent out to work in a storm then they changed this to training.” 2. A preliminary hearing took place before Judge Tinnion on 23 June 2025. 35Judge Tinnion made a number of orders which required to be complied with by 18 August 2025 largely requiring the claimant to provide specification as to why his claim of unfair dismissal should proceed given his admitted position that he did not have two years qualifying service and for him to provide further 4100743/2025Page2 details of his disability and precisely what claims he was making in respect of this. 3.It should be noted that there was some initial difficulty regarding lodging of the respondent’s ET3 however the respondent’s ET3 was allowed to be lodged late. In the ET3, the respondent sought strikeout of the claimant’s claims …