Mr M Coyle v Bounce Back Foundation: 2300060/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim is dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance at this hearing.REASONS
[1]This has been a remote hearing on the papers, which the parties have not objected to. The form of remote hearing was: A - audio. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and the issue of the future determination of the claim could be resolved from the papers. The documents that I was referred to are those contained in the Tribunal case file. The directions given are set out below.[2]The Claimant did not participate in this telephone hearing; the mobile number he has provided was used to contact him, but there was no response.[3]This is a claim brought by an ET1 (8 January 2019), which alleges unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. On 30 September 2019, EJ Fowell identified the issues in the case and gave directions, in particular that the Claimant should provide further information in relation to his complaint of disability discrimination on or before 14 October 2019 and a statement, in which he should describe the adverse effects of that condition, by 1 November 2019. The Claimant was also given specific instructions concerning disclosure, which were to be followed by 4 December 2019.[4]The Claimant did none of those things, nor did he explain why he did not do them. The Respondent applied to strike out his claim on 10 December 2019 and he did not respond to that application. EJ Martin sent him a strike out warning (but without an unless order) on 3 March 2020 and he did not reply to that warning either.[5]On 31 March 2020, the Claimant requested by email that everything should be put on hold given the current Covid-19 crisis. This email was from the address the Respondent and Tribunal had been using, which suggests that the Claimant had received everything previously sent to him. He did not offer any explanation for his failure to comply with the directions or to respond to the various communications from the Respondent and Tribunal. Today, he did not attend this hearing, but provided no reason for his nonattendance.[6]In those circumstances, Mr Profitt raised the Tribunal’s powers under Rule 47 to dismiss a claim where a party fails to attend. That Rule requires the Tribunal to consider any information available to it before dismissing the claim. The information before me shows non-compliance with the Tribunal’s orders and a complete failure to pursue the claim for the last 7 months, in which context, it was perhaps unlikely that the Claimant’s would participate in this hearing. Rule 47 also requires any enquiries that may be practicable to be made, but beyond calling the number given by the Claimant (which was tried several times, but was not answered) there is not much more that could be done.[7]I considered whether to make an unless order, failing which the claim would be struck out. However, EJ Martin sent a strike out warning on 3 March and that provoked no response at all, let alone any explanation or request for more time.[8]In those circumstances, the claim is dismissed under Rule 47 for nonattendance at this hearing. It is open to the Claimant to apply for reconsideration of this judgment within 14 days of the date the Judgment is of justice for the Judgment to be reconsidered.