Mrs G Zhou v Leeds City Council: 1811253/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]There being no attendance of the Claimant at the Preliminary Hearing, the Claimant’s claims be dismissed.REASONS
[2]By notice dated 26 April 2019 the parties were notified of a further Preliminary Hearing to determine whether any part of the claim was presented out of time and, if so, whether the time limit should be extended and to identify the issues to be decided at the final hearing and make orders to prepare for a final hearing and list the final hearing.[3]At 10.10 a.m. there was no attendance by the Claimant or her representative. The Respondent’s solicitor and the interpreter were in attendance.[4]On checking, the Claimant or her representative had not contacted the Tribunal to inform it about lateness or non-attendance at the hearing.[5]The Tribunal clerk tried to contact the Claimant’s representative, Ms. Han by telephone but there was no answer and he left a voicemail message.[6]By 10.25 a.m. there was still no attendance by the Claimant or her representative and no contact has been made to the Tribunal. 1 ph outcome re case management Nov 2014 version Case Number: 1811253/2018[7]On the basis the Claimant had failed to pursue her claim by failing to attend the hearing, the tribunal acceded to the Respondent’s application to dismiss the claims. The claims were dismissed.[8]An order may be varied or revoked upon application by a person affected by the order or by a judge on his/her own initiative.[1]There is a substantial history of delay in this case and this public preliminary hearing has already had to be postponed or adjourned on three occasions. The claim was presented more than a year ago and is still awaiting clarification of the issues that may properly go forward to a final hearing.[2]The Claimant has again failed to attend, this time with no contact having been made or explanation having been given. Although it is understood that the parties have come very close to settlement that does not in itself excuse non-attendance at the listed hearing.[3]There are on the face of the papers substantial difficulties faced by the Claimant in respect of her complaints being out of time.[4]It is not proportionate to adjourn the case further where the Claimant is apparently not pursuing the arguments that were to be determined today as necessary preliminary issues.