Miss J Barton v Steven Heyworth News: 2400483/2024 and 2400829/2024
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s claims are dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the 2013 Rules of Procedure.REASONS
[1]The Tribunal today was listed to hear the final hearing of the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal, protected disclosure detriment and other claims. The hearing had been re-listed at a preliminary hearing held on 28 June 2024.[2]A number of orders were made at that hearing, including one that the respondent do , by no later than 14 days after the sending of the Record of that hearing, send confirmation of the identity of the respondent, and provide an address for the individual , if not a limited company, who traded as the respondent and was the employer of the claimant. The respondent did not comply with that Order.[3]Additionally, both parties were required to confirm to the Tribunal by 20 December 2024 that all case management orders had been complied with, and that they were ready for the hearing. Neither of them has done so. The Tribunal wrote to both parties on 3 January 2025 to ascertain what the position was. Case Nos. 2400483/2024 2400829/2024[4]An email was received from the claimant on 5 January 2025 indicating that she was now homeless and would not be attending the Tribunal due to “weather and travel”. Nothing at all was received from the respondent.[5]Neither party attended or was represented before the Tribunal. Consideration was therefore given to rule 47 of rules of procedure, which provides that , if that party does not attend or is represented at the hearing, provided that the Tribunal has first considered all the information which is available to it , after any enquiries that may be practicable about the reason for the party’s absence, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim.[6]In the circumstances, given the claimant’s stated intention not to attend the hearing, the Tribunal was minded to dismiss the claimant’s claims, and did so.