Mr J Corrington v Larentia Capital Ltd T/a Costa Brecon: 1600874/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]This matter came before me today for a final hearing by way of video conference. On 11 March 2020, the claimant presented an ET1 claim form stating he was bringing complaints for unfair dismissal and arrears of pay. The complaint of unfair dismissal was not accepted as the claimant did not have 2 years’ qualifying service. In his claim form the claimant indicated his preferred means of communication was by post. He did not provide any contact details other than his postal address. On 22 May 2020 Employment Judge Jenkins conducted a case management preliminary hearing by telephone. The claimant attended. Employment Judge Jenkins clarified the claimant’s complaint was about unauthorised deduction from wages and Judge Jenkins issued a series of case management orders to get the case ready for a final hearing. It included matters such as the claimant providing further details of the basis of his claim, the parties exchanging documents, the preparation of a bundle for the final hearing and exchanging witness statements. Employment Judge Jenkins took an email address from the claimant so that the case management order could be emailed to the parties. It was agreed that the full hearing could proceed remotely by way of video.[2]On 15 June 2020 the Tribunal sent the parties the listing notice for today’s hearing. On 25 June 2020 the respondent wrote to the Tribunal stating that the claimant had not complied with any case management orders and seeking an order that the claim be struck out. On 23 July 2020 the parties were emailed details of the video hearing test clinic to attend prior to today’s hearing. The respondent’s application was also referred to Employment Judge Sharp who directed that the claimant was to provide urgent comments within 48 hours. There was no response from the claimant. On 27 July 2020 Acting Regional Employment Judge Davies noted the claimant’s original preference for postal communication and directed that the case management order, notice of hearing and the respondent’s application be sent to the claimant by post for comments by 31 July. The correspondence was duly sent by post and email.[3]There was no response from the claimant. On 31 July 2020 the parties were emailed the log in details for today’s video hearing. That day at my direction the Tribunal emailed the parties indicating that the strike out application would be considered at the start of today’s hearing. That correspondence together with the video hearing login details were also sent to the claimant by post.[4]The claimant did not attend the public hearing by way of video conference today. The Tribunal holds no telephone number for the claimant that would allow the staff to telephone him and make enquiries as to the reason for his absence. As set out above there has been no response from the claimant to correspondence sent by email and by post.[5]Under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure I therefore decided to dismiss the claim. I would in any event also have struck the claim out under Rule 37 for non compliance with the Tribunal orders and/or because the claimant is not actively pursuing his claim. Judgment[6]Under Rule 47 the claimant’s claim is dismissed for failing to attend or to be represented at today’s hearing.[7]This Judgment will be sent to the claimant by post and by email.