Mrs M Anderson v NHS England: 2301279/2024
JUDGMENT
It is the Judgment of the Tribunal that the Claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out.REASONS
JUDGMENT having been sent to the parties on 22 April 2024 and reasons having been requested by the Claimant on 6 May 2024 in accordance with Rule 62(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (“ET Rules”), the following reasons are provided:[1]The Claimant complains of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and “other payments”.[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) requires a claimant to have not less than two years’ service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The Claimant’s claim form stated that she had been employed from 01/04/2022 until 04/08/2023.[4]By letter dated 16 March 2024 the Tribunal gave the Claimant an opportunity to make representations as to why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out.[5]The submissions outlined in the Claimant’s response did not indicate that one of the exceptions to the rule under section 108 ERA applies.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out.[7]The Claimant’s complaints of sex discrimination and for “other payments” continue. Case Number: 2301279/2024 2 of 2 EJ Burge 17 July 2024 Case Number 2301279/2024 1 of 3 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Mrs Maxine Anderson Respondent NHS England Heard at Croydon (by video) On 20 August 2025 Before Employment Judge Fowell Appearances Claimant No appearance Respondent Clare Moore, Associate, DAC Beachcroft LLP[8]The next email was sent from her on Tuesday 19 October at 1357 to the Tribunal to request an adjournment because: a) the documents prepared by the respondent had not been sent seven days prior to the hearing and so had not given her adequate time to prepare, and b) she had only just received the hearing details, including a time for the hearing, and was unable to rearrange child care to be able to join.[9]The respondent’s solicitor wrote promptly at 5.12 pm yesterday to oppose any adjournment. The reasons given were that: a) the previous hearing had been rearranged to take place today because of another late application for an adjournment; b) the notice of hearing stated that the hearing was due to commence at 10 am; c) the final hearing has been listed for 13 to 16 July 2026 and case management needed to take place as soon as possible to allow time to prepare for that hearing; d) their documents had been sent on 14 August 2025 and were almost identical to those sent on the previous occasion.[10]Mrs Anderson did not join the hearing at 10 am and so the Tribunal clerk telephoned her. She responded that she would not be joining the hearing as she does not have child care.[11]Ms Moore, for the respondent, then applied for an order dismissing the claim under rule 47.[12]Rule 47 gives a wide discretion to the Tribunal to dismiss a claim where a party fails to attend a hearing. There is no need for it to happen twice, but that is an important consideration. Case Number 2301279/2024 3 of 3[13]Overall, Mrs Anderson had ample notice of the hearing, and of the time of the hearing. Had she been in any doubt about the time she could have made enquires at any time over the last nine months. She did not suggest that she had arranged child care for another time of day. The fact that she was provided with documents six days before the hearing is no reason to adjourn it again[14]The nine month delay in re-listing such hearings is a reflection of the pressure on the Tribunal list. If this hearing was relisted for another occasion, there would not be enough time before the final hearing to assemble documents and witness statements and so that hearing too would have to be postponed. The delay would be at least a further year.[15]It may well be that the real reason for Mrs Anderson’s non-attendance is anxiety about such hearings. Tribunals understand that unrepresented parties find such hearings stressful. Nevertheless, they are essential to ensuring a fair hearing. The respondent is also put to cost and effort in attending.[16]The ultimate aim of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, known as the overriding objective, set out at rule 3, is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. That is simply not possible in a case where a claimant repeatedly fails to attend a preliminary hearing of this sort. In the circumstances, it would not be in accordance with that objective to adjourn this hearing (and by extension, the final hearing) for a further occasion. The claim is dismissed.