The Benjamin Foundation

Case Summary

The Respondent applied to strike out the Claimant's claims on grounds of non-compliance with tribunal orders, unreasonable conduct, and lack of active pursuit. The Claimant had failed to comply with orders requiring provision of further particulars, medical evidence, disability impact statement, and list of issues by specified deadlines. Employment Judge Boyes refused the strike out application, finding that whilst the ground of non-compliance under rule 38(1)(c) was made out, the Claimant had achieved partial compliance by the hearing date and there remained sufficient time before the final hearing on 14/7/2026 for case preparation to be completed.

Although the Claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders, the ground of non-compliance under rule 38(1)(c) was established. However, Employment Judge Boyes exercised discretion to refuse strike out because the Claimant had achieved partial compliance by the hearing date (providing disability impact statement and schedule of loss), there was sufficient time before the final hearing on 14/7/2026 for necessary preparations, and strike out should only be used as a matter of last resort on the clearest grounds. The judge also noted administrative errors in the tribunal's handling contributed to delays.

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

• •Application to strike out claims under rule 38(1)(b), (c) and (d) of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
• •Non-compliance with tribunal case management orders
• •Unreasonable conduct of proceedings
• •Claim not actively pursued
• •Whistleblowing complaint
• •Disability discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010
• •Sex discrimination under section 26 Equality Act 2010

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Caroline Page Respondent: The Benjamin Foundation RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: Bury St Edmunds (in public; by video) On: 4/3/2026 Before: Employment Judge Boyes (sitting alone) Appearances For the Claimant: Mr J. Hyland, solicitor For the Respondent: Ms Ahari, counsel JUDGMENT The Respondent’s application to strike out the Claimant’s claims in reliance upon rule 38(1)(b), (c) and (d) of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 is refused. REASONS Background to the application 1. The Respondent has made an application to strike out the Claimant’s claims on the 2/3/2026. The application was made in writing and the Claimant’s representative was copied in. The grounds relied upon were that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant is unreasonable, that there had been non-compliance with orders of the Tribunal, and because the claim has not been actively pursued. 2. In its written application, the Respondent stated that its defence of the case is being severely prejudiced particularly given that many of the allegations in this case date back to 2023. Despite the claim having been made in August 2024, the issues in the case have yet to be satisfactorily clarified. It submitted that given that there has been no progress whatsoever in case preparations/non- compliance with case management orders by the Claimant since the last preliminary hearing on 4/11/2025 (4 months prior), it is entirely appropriate that the Tribunal strike out the Claimant’s claim. The Respondent stated that it has no confidence that there would be compliance with further case management orders for important matters such as disclosure or witness statements. 3. The Claimant initially provided further and better particulars, as previously ordered, on 18/8/2025. 4. On 4/11/2025, there was…