W Longbottom v Barclays Bank UK plc: 1801218/2022
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s complaints in claim number 1801218/2022 are dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 due to the claimant’s failure to attend the preliminary hearing on 17 May 2022.REASONS
[1]A preliminary hearing (“PH”) by telephone on case management was fixed for 17 May 2022 at 2pm. A Notice of Hearing was sent to the claimant by post on 15 March 2022 with the details and instructions for joining the hearing. The Tribunal has no email address or phone number for the claimant who did not provide such contact details in his claim form. The claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. The respondent’s representative, Ms L Hill, solicitor, attended the hearing on behalf of the respondent. The Tribunal Clerk was asked to check if there had been any contact from the claimant to advise that he did not propose to attend. The Clerk confirmed there was not. Ms Hill noted that her firm had sent two letters to the claimant on 21 and 26 April 2022 in connection with preparation for the hearing. She advised that these letters were sent by recorded delivery and confirmed her firm has proof of receipt by the claimant of the correspondence (which was included in a bundle the respondent had prepared for use at the PH). Both letters referred to the PH and the date for which it was fixed. The respondent’s representative requested an email address for the claimant and sought to liaise with him regarding the preparation of case management agendas and a List of Issues. The claimant did not respond to the letters and did not provide a contact email address. The claimant did not send to the Tribunal a completed case management agenda in advance of the preliminary hearing as directed in the Notice of Hearing.[2]I asked Ms Hill if the respondent had provided her with information it may have about the claimant’s current circumstances that might explain the claimant’s lack of attendance. Ms Hill indicated the respondent had not passed any information of that sort to her, and she wasn’t aware that the respondent has any knowledge of the claimant’s circumstances since his employment ended in November 2021.[3]At around 2.25 pm, in the absence of contact from the claimant, I updated respondent’s representative regarding the information confirmed to me by the Clerk. I invited Ms Hill’s comments. She made an application for dismissal of the claimant’s claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, which failing, she sought an ‘Unless’ Order requiring the claimant to provide further particulars of his claim. Ms Hill explained she could only conclude the claimant was well aware of the details of the hearing and the fact he was expected to attend given the correspondence which her firm had sent by recorded delivery as well as the terms of the Notice of hearing itself. She submitted that it was reasonable to infer that the claimant does not wish to pursue his complaint.[4]Having considered all information available including the notice provided of the hearing and the absence of any meaningful communication received from the claimant explaining his non-attendance, I dismissed the claim orally at the hearing pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. This Rule provides the Tribunal with the discretion to dismiss a claim in the event of a party’s non-attendance, having considered the information available after such enquiries as are practicable about the reasons for the claimant’s absence. There appeared to be no good reason for the claimant’s lack of attendance and no explanation has been forthcoming from the claimant. There was compelling evidence that the claimant was aware of the date and time of the hearing. I agreed with Ms Hill that in all the circumstances, and having regard to the information available following enquiries, it was reasonable to infer the claimant does not wish to pursue his claim. I consider that this disposal serves the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly, including avoiding delay and expense to the parties and the Tribunal.[5]I draw to the claimant’s attention the terms of Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. If the claimant believes that it is in the interests of justice that this decision be revoked, he should make an application for reconsideration pursuant to that Rule. Any such application should be presented in writing within 14 days of the date on which this judgment is sent to the claimant. It should set out the reason why the claimant says a reconsideration of this decision is necessary. It will be helpful, if such an application is made, if the claimant explains his reason for his non-attendance at the hearing on 17 May 2022 and his reasons for not letting the Tribunal know of his intention not to join the hearing. Employment Judge Murphy (Scotland), acting as an Employment Judge (England and Wales) Date: 17 May 2022 Case No: 1801218/2022 11.10 Judgment on reconsideration of judgment – hearing - rules 70 and 73 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: W Longbottom Respondent: Barclays Bank UK Plc Heard at: Leeds Employment Tribunal On: 5 September 2022 Before: Employment Judge Murphy Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Ms M Stanley of counsel UPON APPLICATION made by letter dated 24 May 2022 to reconsider the judgment dated 17 May 2022 under rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013