Employment Appeal Tribunal Overturns Strike Out Decision in Unfair Dismissal Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a decision to strike out a respondent's case, deeming the move disproportionate and legally unsound.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has quashed a decision to strike out a company's response in an employment dispute, finding that the lower tribunal erred in its application of procedural rules. The case, Master Trade Network Ltd v Ahmed, highlights the high threshold required for such drastic measures.
Background to the Dispute
The claimant, Bashir Ahmed, brought several claims against Master Trade Network Ltd, including automatic unfair dismissal for asserting rights under the National Minimum Wage Act. During the hearing in October 2024, the Employment Tribunal struck out the employer's response after the respondent attempted to argue the claimant was a worker, despite having previously denied he was an employee or a worker in their initial response.
The tribunal ruled that the respondent had ambushed the claimant with an unpleaded case and subsequently prevented the employer from participating in the remainder of the proceedings. The tribunal also awarded £11,200 for injury to feelings related to the dismissal.
EAT Ruling on Proportionality
On appeal, His Honour Judge Tariq Sadiq found that the strike out was disproportionate. The EAT noted that the tribunal failed to adequately consider whether a fair trial remained possible based on the respondent's original pleaded case. Judge Sadiq emphasised that the strike out power is a draconian measure that should not be used as a punitive tool for poor litigation strategy.
Furthermore, the EAT addressed the tribunal's award for injury to feelings. It is well-established in legal precedent, such as Dunnachie v Kingston-Upon-Hull City Council, that such awards are not available for unfair dismissal claims. The claimant conceded this error, and the award was quashed.
Impact of the Decision
The EAT has remitted the case to a differently constituted tribunal to be reheard. This new panel will decide the claims based on the employer's original argument that the claimant was neither a worker nor an employee. The decision serves as a reminder to tribunals that they must carefully weigh proportionality and alternative sanctions before resorting to the exclusion of a party from proceedings.
Read the entire judgment here: Master Trade Network Ltd v Ahmed [2026] EAT 143
