M A Lloyd v Guys and St Thomas Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: 2307991/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2307991/2023Venue this matterHearing 19 November 2024. The claimant did not attend. In the order sent to the parties the day after that hearing Judge Corrigan recorded: ‘1. The claimant did not attend today’s hearing. The clerk attempted to contact him by phone but there was a message saying that it is not possible to connect calls to the number. An email was sent but there was no reply during the hearing. On the claim form the claimant had ticked “no” to the question of whether he could attend a video hearing. 2. The respondent has been contacting the claimant for 6 months attempting to obtain further particulars of the claim. He did correspond with them in June 2024, referencing that he had been absorbed in the appeal of his dismissal which had just come to an end. He was dismissed after a lengthy absence and he describes in the claim that he had extreme depression, stress and anxiety.’ 2. Judge Corrigan refused the respondent’s application for the claim to be struck out at that stage due to the fact the claimant had ticked that he could not attend a video hearing and there was a real possibility that there may have been a health reason for his lack of contact and there appeared to be an issue with his phone. 3. She listed a further case management hearing to be heard in person on 10 February 2025 and ordered the claimant to write to the Tribunal and the respondent’s representative no later than 10 December 2024 to explain his failure to attend the hearing and to confirm he wished to pursue his claims. Case Number: 2307991/23 He was warned that if he failed to reply then the claim may be struck out on the basis it is not being actively pursued. 4. The claimant did not comply with that Order and on 29 January 2025 the respondent applied to the Tribunal for the claim to be struck out due to the claimant's non-compliance with the Orders and/or the fact that he was not actively pursuing his claims. 5. The claimant did not attend the further case management hearing on 10 February 2025. It had been listed, however, in error as a video hearing. Accordingly a further opportunity was given to the claimant and on the same day a warning was sent to him advising him that consideration was being given to striking out the claim. He was advised that if he wished to object to that proposal he should give his reasons in writing or request a hearing by 17 February 2025. 6. No reply has been received from the claimant. Accordingly it is concluded that the claimant has not actively pursued his claim and it is appropriate to strike it out. 7. The hearings listed for 12 May 2025 and 18 August 2025 (for four days) are vacated.
Between
M A LloydClaimantGuys and St Thomas Hospital NHS Foundation TrustRespondent
Date 9 April 2025

JUDGMENT

The claim is struck out.

REASONS

[1]A case management preliminary hearing was held in this matter on 19 November 2024. The claimant did not attend. In the order sent to the parties the day after that hearing Judge Corrigan recorded: ‘1. The claimant did not attend today’s hearing. The clerk attempted to contact him by phone but there was a message saying that it is not possible to connect calls to the number. An email was sent but there was no reply during the hearing. On the claim form the claimant had ticked “no” to the question of whether he could attend a video hearing.[2]The respondent has been contacting the claimant for 6 months attempting to obtain further particulars of the claim. He did correspond with them in June 2024, referencing that he had been absorbed in the appeal of his dismissal which had just come to an end. He was dismissed after a lengthy absence and he describes in the claim that he had extreme depression, stress and anxiety.’ 2. Judge Corrigan refused the respondent’s application for the claim to be struck out at that stage due to the fact the claimant had ticked that he could not attend a video hearing and there was a real possibility that there may have been a health reason for his lack of contact and there appeared to be an issue with his phone.[3]She listed a further case management hearing to be heard in person on 10 February 2025 and ordered the claimant to write to the Tribunal and the respondent’s representative no later than 10 December 2024 to explain his failure to attend the hearing and to confirm he wished to pursue his claims. Case Number: 2307991/23 He was warned that if he failed to reply then the claim may be struck out on the basis it is not being actively pursued.[4]The claimant did not comply with that Order and on 29 January 2025 the respondent applied to the Tribunal for the claim to be struck out due to the claimant's non-compliance with the Orders and/or the fact that he was not actively pursuing his claims.[5]The claimant did not attend the further case management hearing on 10 February 2025. It had been listed, however, in error as a video hearing. Accordingly a further opportunity was given to the claimant and on the same day a warning was sent to him advising him that consideration was being given to striking out the claim. He was advised that if he wished to object to that proposal he should give his reasons in writing or request a hearing by 17 February 2025.[6]No reply has been received from the claimant. Accordingly it is concluded that the claimant has not actively pursued his claim and it is appropriate to strike it out.[7]The hearings listed for 12 May 2025 and 18 August 2025 (for four days) are vacated.