Mr J Dawson v The Cabinet Office: 2201166/2019
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that the Claimant’s claim is struck out.REASONS
[1]This matter was listed before the Tribunal as a Preliminary Hearing to determine the question: “Whether the claim should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, or to pay a deposit, not exceeding £1,000, as a condition of being able to advance any of his allegations or arguments.”[2]The Claimant’s claim as set out in his Claim Form ET1 is expressed in terms of a payment of wages due as a proportion of annual remuneration of £73,584,885,328.00p for a period commencing on 27 January 2019.[3]The Claimant did not attend and was not represented.[4]The Respondent was represented by Counsel.[5]On hearing Counsel for the Respondent and having regard to the content of the Claimant’s Claim Form ET1 (in particular, at Boxes 8.2 and 9.2) the Employment Judge finds that there is no evidence to support the proposition that the Claimant is or has at any time been a “worker” employed by the Respondent as provided for by section 23(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by reference to section 230(3) of the same statute.[6]Particular note is taken of the proposition set out at Box 8.2 of the Claim Form ET1 to the effect that: “My service came into effect as of 27th January 2019 and is ongoing, despite no contact having been made to me by the government, nor any contract of employment having been agreed.”[7]The Respondent’s position is that the Claimant is unknown to them.[8]In the absence of any further evidence and given the non-attendance of the Claimant to provide additional explanation of his claim and the basis for it the Employment Judge is of the view that the Claimant’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success.[9]Having regard to the powers contained in Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 the Employment Judge is of the view that in the light of the finding set out above the Claimant’s claim should be struck out in its entirety.