Mr J Anderson v Barchester Healthcare Ltd: 1402383/2021
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal, religion or belief discrimination, “I am owed other payments”, “losing bonuses and my job due to not taking an experimental drug” are dismissed upon his failure to attend or be represented at today’s preliminary hearing, pursuant to Rule 47.REASONS
[1]The claimant presented a claim in the Bristol Tribunal on 29 June 2021. The only written contact from him on the file (I do not rule out telephone contact which is undocumented), apart from his claim form, is an email on 7 August 2021 giving his contact details again (these were present in his claim form).[2]His claim has been transferred to be managed in Leeds and today was the third hearing for case management of the multiple. He has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders and a strike out warning was issued with a deadline to show cause by 4.30pm today why his claim should not be struck out.[3]Yesterday’s hearing involved substantial discussion. He is one of two litigants in person in the first tranche of claims listed to be heard in October this year. That he did not attend may reflect that something untoward has happened to him (which may also explain why he has not complied with orders, nor given any explanation as yet for that). We very much hope not. More likely is that he has abandoned his claim and his getting on with his life, because that is the overarching impression on the file.[4]In all the circumstances, but including fairness to all the parties, for whom there is a need to comply with directions, I consider it is fair to dismiss his claim Case No: 1402383/2021 today. If that is wrong, there is the possibility of an application for reconsideration of this judgment. Any such application must set out reasons for the serial failures to date, as well as the non attendance yesterday.