Mr Turner and Mr J Aubrook v FR Shadbold and Sons Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation): 3202136/2024 and 3201526/2024
JUDGMENT
Under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, all claims brought by both claimants are dismissed by reason of their non-attendance at the hearing.REASONS
[1]I am satisfied that both parties were sent Notices of today’s hearing.[2]Under Rule 47 of the Tribunal Rules 2024: If a party fails to attend or to be represented at a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it must consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.[3]I made enquiries of the other claimants attending today (see cases 3201343, 3201515, 3201518) who confirmed to me that both claimants were aware of today’s hearing. One was at work and one on holiday. Those reasons were not sufficient to persuade me to proceed with the hearing in their absence. In any event I needed to hear their evidence on their losses before being able to decide on judgment. There was no application for postponement. For all of Case Numbers: 3202136/2024 and 3201526/2024 those reasons it was in accordance with the overriding objective (Rule 2) to dismiss the claims. The parties were aware of their opportunity to be heard and had not taken it.[4]Further in Mr Turner’s claim was brought out of the 3 month time limit established by the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994. I could not consider his claim without hearing his evidence as to the reason for the delay. Approved by:[1]First I must apologise for the delay in reaching a decision on Mr Turner’s application for reconsideration. I have had limited sitting days in the last quarter of the year.[2]I dismissed the claim because of the Claimant’s non-attendance. I would have had to hear his evidence about his losses and evidence from him about why his claim had been brought out of the primary time limit.[3]In a reconsideration application I must first consider whether there are reasonable prospects of the judgment being varied or revoked.[4]A reconsideration application is not a second bite at the litigation cherry. That is because there are good public policy reasons for litigation to be final (saving expense both for the parties and the taxpayers and certainty). A party must therefore put forward reasons, which make it necessary in the interests of justice for the judgment to be reconsidered. Mr Turner has not put forward such reasons in his application. He says he wanted to be there but was out of the country. I will explain why these reasons are insufficient. Case Number: 3202136/2024[5]The hearing is the chance to attend to tell the judge the facts they need to hear about before they can decide the claims. Tribunal proceedings are not purely administrative: evidence in the form of witness testimony is usually required before a judgement can be made. In this case I needed to hear Mr Turner’s testimony about his losses and about why he brought his claim out of time. That is why hearing dates are arranged and attendance by the parties is required.[6]Parties are given notice of hearing so that they can make arrangements to attend. If they have good reasons for non-attendance then they can apply for a postponement. A large number of parties are awaiting Tribunal hearings. A hearing date is therefore important and not to be disregarded out of mere convenience. A holiday is not always a good reason not to attend or to seek a postponement, it depends on all of the circumstances. Mr Turner had not applied for a postponement. He has not now provided me with any details of why it would be just to reopen his case because he was out of the country.[7]It is not therefore necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment. The application has no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked and does not succeed.