Miss L Tarney v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: 2404179/2023
JUDGMENT
The claim is dismissed.REASONS
[1]Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 provides: “If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim… 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.”[2]The power in rule 47 must be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 2. The overriding objective is to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes avoiding delay and acting proportionately.[3]By letter dated 8 June 2023, the parties were informed that there would be a preliminary hearing by telephone for case management on 22 August 2023. Included in the letter were instructions for how to dial into the hearing. The letter was sent by post to the claimant’s address, that being the claimant’s preferred method of communication. Case No. 2404179/2023[4]The claimant has not made contact with the respondent since she presented her claim.[5]There is no record of the claimant having tried to communicate with the tribunal since she presented her claim, for example, to explain any difficulty she might have in dialling into the telephone hearing.[6]The claimant did not dial into the hearing today and had not done so by 2.30pm when the hearing finished.[7]At 2.25pm, the tribunal clerk attempted to telephone the claimant on both her mobile and landline telephone numbers. She did not answer either call.[8]The claim was presented substantially more than three months after the termination of her employment. The claim form does not appear to be complaining about any alleged breach of her employment rights occurring after her employment ended. The respondent’s response to the claim made clear that it sought to have the claim struck out on the ground that it was presented after the expiry of the statutory time limit. The claimant’s non-attendance is capable of being explained by her having decided not to pursue her claim now that she knows about the potential time limit hurdle. That explanation is consistent with the claimant’s apparent failure to communicate with the tribunal and the respondent.[9]No other explanation has been put forward for not attending the hearing.[10]I am satisfied that the tribunal has made all practicable enquiries about the reasons for the claimant’s absence.[11]Dismissing this claim under rule 47 would be proportionate and helps to achieve the overriding objective.[12]The claim is therefore dismissed.