Mr U Ali Dogar v I & I Team Ltd T/a Pizza Hut: 2402999/2017
JUDGMENT
The complaints of sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination are struck out.REASONS
[1]On 25 September 2017, at a preliminary hearing which the claimant did not attend, Employment Judge Ross ordered the claimant to provide further details of his complaints of sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. The order was sent to the parties on 5 October 2017. The deadline for compliance was 16 October 2017. The claimant did not comply.[2]On 19 October 2017, the tribunal wrote to the claimant to remind him of the order and asked him to comply by 27 October 2017. The claimant did not reply.[3]By a letter dated 01 November 2017 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the complaints of sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination should not be struck out. The claimant has not replied.[4]Based on these facts, the tribunal concludes that the claimant has breached a case management order, that he has conducted the proceedings unreasonably by failing to answer correspondence and that he is not actively pursuing this part of his claim. The complaints of sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination are therefore struck out. Case No:2402999/2017[5]The remainder of the claimant’s claim remains listed for hearing on 18-19 December 2017. _____________________________ Employment Judge Horne 14 December 2017[1]The judgment sent to the parties on 21 December 2017 is revoked.[2]The final hearing will be re-listed on a date to be notified to the parties.[1]The final hearing was listed for 10 a.m. on 18 December 2017. Neither party had attended by 10.15 a.m. and the claimant had not contacted the tribunal to say he was delayed. The judge, therefore, dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 for failure of the claimant to attend the hearing.[2]After the judge had dismissed the claim, the tribunal received a telephone call from someone saying she was the claimant’s sister and that the claimant was running late. Later that morning, the claimant arrived at the tribunal. The judge saw the claimant and explained that she had dismissed the claim but he could apply for a reconsideration if there was a good reason that he had not attended on time. The claimant told the judge that he had not arrived in time because the trams were not working. He said he had not telephoned before 10 a.m. because he thought it would make it on time.[3]By letter dated 28 December 2017, the claimant applied for a reconsideration of the judgment dismissing his claim. He wrote that he had been late because the metrolink had been stopped for 35 minutes due to a signal failure. He wrote that Case No: 2402990/2017 his grandmother had died on 24 September 2017 and he had been suffering from depression since that time. He said he now had all the evidence to back up hisclaim.
[4]By a letter dated 18 January 2018, the judge expressed the provisional view that the application to reconsider judgment should be granted because it appeared that problems with transport delayed the claimant’s attendance at the hearing on 18 December 2017 and it was in the interests of justice that his complaints about being underpaid and not receiving itemised payslips should be considered on their merits. The judge gave the respondent an opportunity to write in saying why the judgment should not be reconsidered and both parties were invited to set out their views on whether the application could be determined without a hearing.[5]Neither party requested an oral reconsideration hearing. The respondent wrote on 22 January 2018 expressing the view that the judgment should not be reconsidered. The respondent referred to the claimant not having provided information in compliance with case management orders.[6]I do not have any information on the basis of which I can conclude that the claimant’s case has no reasonable prospect of success if I revoke the judgment and allow the case to be heard on its merits. Whilst the claimant did not attend the hearing on time, he attended later that morning. I have no reason to doubt that he experienced transport difficulties on the morning of the hearing which prevented him attending on time. Whilst the claimant may have failed to comply with case management orders in relation to preparation for the last hearing, I consider a fair trial is still possible. I consider it in the interests of justice that the claim should be determined on its merits. I, therefore, revoke the judgment. The case will be re-listed for hearing. Revised case management orders will also be issued. If the claimant fails to comply with these orders, his case could be struck out for non- compliance with the orders. The respondent must also comply with the orders and failure to do so could result in the response being struck out. _____________________________ Employment Judge Slater 2 March 2018claim.
[1]By a letter dated 27 April 2018 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 Case Management Order of the Tribunal dated 14 March 2018. 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. The claim is therefore struck out.