Miss E Khorozyan v Brent Property Ltd: 2307521/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The Rule 21 Judgment dated 19 April 2024 is revoked.[2]The Response has been accepted. Employment Judge BurgeREASONS
[1]The Claimant complains of unfair dismissal.[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years’ service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore the Claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The Claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The Claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. ________________________ Employment Judge Ramsden Date: 21 January 2025 Case Number: 2307521/2023 1 of 4 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Heard at: London South On: 21 January 2025 Claimant: Miss E Khorozyan Respondent: Brent Property Ltd Before: Employment Judge Ramsden Representation: Claimant Non-attending Respondent Ms R Sharma, DirectorBackground
[7]The Tribunal clerk telephoned the Claimant, and explained that if she did not attend she risked the Employment Tribunal dismissing her claim for her nonattendance. The Claimant reiterated to the clerk that she was unable to attend. She said that she had just started a new job, and she had been unable to get the time off to attend.[8]The 56 minutes of notice she gave the Tribunal meant that the Respondent had already made arrangements to attend, and the Tribunal was unable to reschedule any other hearing for another case to use the precious Tribunal time for another matter. The hearing today[9]The Respondent attended the Tribunal today in order to take part in that hearing, and the Employment Judge determined to proceed with the hearing in light of that fact.[10]The Respondent applied for the Claimant’s claim to be struck-out for her nonattendance.Law
[11]Rule 47 provides: “If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it shall consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.” Consideration of the Respondent’s application[12]The Employment Judge explained what the clerk had been told by the Claimant – that the Claimant had just started a new job and had been unable to get time off. Ms Sharma for the Respondent said in response that the amount of notice Case Number: 2307521/2023 3 of 4 had been inadequate – the hearing has been listed since 7 May 2024, and she had rearranged commitments in order to attend.[13]Having considered the following information available to the Tribunal about the Claimant’s non-attendance: a) The Claimant was evidently informed of, and knew about, today’s hearing; b) It is clear that the date and time of this hearing had been fixed for more than eight months; c) While it is good that the Claimant has started new employment (mitigating her losses if her complaint about the discriminatory nature of her dismissal were to be upheld), she gave no meaningful notice of her non-attendance; d) This meant the Respondent’s time was wasted, as was the Tribunal’s; e) Many other parties are waiting for hearing time before this Tribunal, and the Claimant’s actions not only wasted this hearing slot, they threaten the viability of the Final Hearing listed for July. Given many of her complaints are presently unclear, the Respondent’s ability to prepare to resist those complaints would be hindered by the delay to this hearing; and f) The Claimant has not complied with other Orders of the Tribunal, such as sending in a completed Case Management Hearing agenda for this hearing, which might have meant that some progress could have been made in this hearing, the Employment Judge considered that it is in the interests of justice that the claim be struck-out for the Claimant’s non-attendance pursuant to Rule 47. Further postponement of this hearing is not appropriate in light of the Claimant’s non-compliance with the previous Order to attend and the Order to send in a completed copy of the Case Management Hearing agenda.Conclusions
[14]The Claimant’s complaint for unfair dismissal has already been dismissed.[15]The Claimant’s remaining claim is dismissed by reason of her non-attendance at today’s hearing.