Miss O Esho v DWP: 2305527/2021
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out.REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 19/10/22 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out because• the claimant had not complied with the Order of the Tribunal dated 18/8/22.• it has not been actively pursued.[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing.[3]The claimant’s representative wrote to the respondent on 25/10/22 saying that she had not heard from the claimant “for months”. The claimant has not informed the Tribunal of any change to her representation. The respondent wrote to the Tribunal on 2/11/22, copying in the claimant directly, outlining the claimant’s non-compliance and asking for the claim to be struck out. The claimant has not responded.[4]The claimant has not engaged with the Tribunal process at all since presenting her claim. It is clear that the claim is not being actively pursued. The claim is therefore struck out.[5]The hearing fixed for 22/11/22 will not take place. 6.2 Strike out Judgment – claim - rule 37 Case No: 2305527/2021[1]By a judgment dated 9 November 2022, the claimant’s claim that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from her wages was struck out on the grounds that she had not complied with the Tribunal’s case management order of 18 August 2022 and had not actively pursued the claim.[2]The claimant had been represented by a Ms Babalola Lateefat, who I believe was a lay representative. Neither Ms Lateefat or the claimant attended the case management hearing at which the said orders were made but a copy of the order was sent to Ms Lateefat at the address on file.[3]The claim was presented on 16 November 2021. Having gone through the Tribunal file, there is no record of the Ms Lateefat having communicated with the Tribunal since presentation of the claim. Correspondence has been all one way. Further, the only direct communication from the claimant was when she made her reconsideration application.[4]The basis of the claimant’s application is that she did not receive the Tribunal’s correspondence as it was being sent to her at the respondent’s address and she had not worked there for over a year. The Tribunal’s records show this not to be the case. All correspondence has been sent to Ms Lateefat’s email account.[5]Having chosen to be represented in these proceedings, the onus was on the claimant to actively liaise with Ms Lateefat in relation to her case.[6]By an email dated 14 November 2022, the respondent informed the Tribunal that it received notification from Ms Lateefat on 25 October 2022 that she was no longer representing the claimant. That being the case, it was even more important that the claimant actively engaged with the Tribunal in relation to her claim.[7]In light of the above, there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The application is therefore refused. Case Number: 2305527/2021