Mr K Clay v Mitie Ltd: 2301400/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claims are dismissed upon non-attendance pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.REASONS
[1]Judgment in this case was given orally on 3 October 2022. Pursuant to his right to do so under rule 63 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (“the Tribunal Rules”) the Claimant requested written reasons.Law
[2]Rule 47 of the Tribunal Rules permits a Tribunal to dismiss a claim or proceed in the absence of that party if a party fails to attend or be represented. Before exercising that power the tribunal must consider any information which is available to it, after any inquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.[3]In exercising its power the tribunal is required to consider the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly. The overriding objective includes dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate, avoiding delay and saving expense: Rule 2.Facts
[4]In the period before the hearing the claimant had engaged actively with the tribunal and the respondent by email in anticipation of a hearing.[5]The tribunal provided the Claimant by email with hearing details and a link at about 16.00 on Friday 30 September 2022. The claimant responded by email later Friday afternoon with a question about what to do if the link did not work.[6]The clerk opened the CVP waiting room approximately 20 minutes before 10am. The respondent’s counsel and witness joined. An unknown participant with a Pentonville Prison address joined the waiting room approximately 15 minutes before the commencement of the hearing. It is not known if this was the claimant, although the tribunal considered that it might have been. That unknown participant dropped out of the waiting room before 10:00am and did not seek re-entry.[7]The claimant was not present by name or represented as a participant at the CVP hearing which commenced with initial contact through the clerk at 10.00 am.[8]The tribunal delayed the start of the hearing to give the claimant the opportunity to participate.[9]The clerk took steps to ascertain reasons for the claimant’s absence between 10 and 10.30 am. She telephoned the claimant’s mobile number as provided in his ET1 on three occasions and left one voice message. She emailed the claimant to the email address provided in the ET1 with the CVP link and contact details for the CVP helpdesk.[10]At about 10:40 the tribunal informed the respondent that it proposed to wait until 11 am to see if the claimant made contact.[11]By 11.10 am the claimant had not made any contact with the clerk or the tribunal or provided any reasons for his non-attendance.[12]The tribunal heard submissions from the respondent.Conclusion
[13]Having regard to the lack of any reasons for the Claimant’s non-appearance and having regard to the overriding objective the tribunal determined that the claimant’s claims should be dismissed for non-attendance.