The Employment Appeal Tribunal has handed down two decisions—PP v GG Ltd [2025] EAT 65 and Forrest v Amazon Web Services [2025] EAT 81—that sharply remind employment tribunals that striking out a case is a “draconian” measure to be deployed only when a fair trial has truly become impossible and lesser sanctions will not suffice.
PP v GG Ltd: bias and evidence errors
In PP v GG, Judge Stout ruled that Reading tribunal over-reached when it struck out an unrepresented claimant’s discrimination claim after she made wide-ranging allegations against her employer.
The EAT said the tribunal failed to weigh key evidence—including a WhatsApp message supporting one allegation—before declaring the claims baseless.
It found the tribunal created a “false dichotomy” by suggesting either the claimant’s own strike-out bid succeeded or her case must be struck out, ignoring midpoint options.
Crucially, the judge held there was an appearance of bias: the tribunal had prompted the employer to make the strike-out application it later upheld.
Re-emphasising long-standing authority, the judgment calls strike-out a “draconian power” to be exercised only as “a last resort if no other remedy or sanction is appropriate.”
The appeal was allowed and the claim reinstated.
Forrest v Amazon: tribunals must try an ‘unless order’ first
Three weeks later, Mr Justice Griffiths restored another discrimination case, blasting the tribunal for leaping straight from a missed case-management deadline to total strike-out.
The EAT said it is “hard to think of a case in which it would be right to go directly” from non-compliance to strike-out without first issuing an unless order—giving the party a final chance to comply.
The lower tribunal failed to ask the central question: whether a fair trial was still possible. Given the early stage of proceedings, the EAT said the answer was plainly yes.
The judgment cites Baber v RBS for the need to weigh the magnitude of default, responsibility, prejudice, and alternative sanctions before striking out.
Rule change coming
Both appeals were decided under Rule 37 of the 2013 Rules (now Rule 39 in the 2024 update), but the principles remain unchanged: strike-out is a remedy of last resort, not a tool of procedural convenience.
For employers and representatives the rulings underline the importance of keeping evidence organised, seeking unless orders first, and avoiding tactics that could suggest bias—because future strike-out bids will now face far greater scrutiny.
This article was created with insights from Lex HR - your always-on HR legal assistant. Lex HR helps HR professionals navigate complex employment law with confidence, providing real-time, reliable advice tailored to your needs. Try it free today and see how much easier compliance can be.
