Alfa Tail Lifts Ltd

Case Summary

Mr J Parnall's claims against Alfa Tail Lifts Ltd for disability discrimination, whistleblowing, and victimisation were struck out by Employment Judge P Cadney at a preliminary hearing on 20th April 2026. The claimant failed to comply with case management orders, did not actively pursue his claims, and failed to attend the hearing despite being contacted.

The tribunal struck out the claims because the claimant breached case management orders by failing to comply with directions to provide information about his disability, protected disclosures, discrimination allegations, and medical evidence by the required deadlines, did not actively pursue the claims as evidenced by his failure to attend the hearing, and failed to respond when contacted by telephone on the morning of the hearing.

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

• •Failure to comply with case management orders
• •Failure to actively pursue claims
• •Non-attendance at hearing
• •Strike out application under r38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
• •Disability discrimination claims (PTSD, anxiety, depression)
• •Protected disclosure claims
• •Victimisation claims
• •Reasonable adjustments claims

1 of 7 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr J Parnall Respondent: Alfa Tail Lifts Ltd Heard at: Bristol On: 20 th April 2026 Before: Employment Judge P Cadney Representation: Claimant: No Attendance Respondent: Mrs A Singh ( Solicitor) PRELIMINARY HEARING JUDGMENT The judgment of the tribunal is that:- i) The claimant has not complied with case management orders of the tribunal within the meaning of r38(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024; ii) The claimant has not actively pursued his claims within the meaning of r38(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024; iii) The claimant has not attended the hearing within the meaning of r47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024; iv) As a result the claimnt’s claims are struck out pursuant to the rules set out above. Reasons 1. Non Attendance of the Claimant – The claimant had not attended the hearing by 10.00 a.m. and he was contacted by telephone. He did not respond and a voicemail message was left. By 10.15 he had not joined the hearing; not emailed or telephoned to indicate that he had any difficulty in joining; and had not responded to the voicemail message. 2 of 7 2. As is set out below, the case was originally listed for a 2 day CVP PH commencing at 10.00 am this morning; and so even if the claimant had not received or read the tribunal’s email of 17 th April 2026 converting the hearing to a 3 hour preliminary hearing (for the reasons set out below) he should still have joined anticipating that the two day hearing was still listed. In either event he should have joined, and in the circumstances the hearing proceeded in his absence and I made the orders given above. 3. Listing - This case came before EJ Bax for a TCMPH on 12 th January 2026. He listed the case for a two day Preliminary h…