Mr A Vyas v Security Industry Authority: 3202244/2019
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out.REASONS
[1]The Claimant failed to attend a preliminary hearing on 3 February 2020. Instead he wrote to the Tribunal stating that ‘I will not be attending the Tribunal due to health reasons’.[2]By a letter of the same date the Tribunal wrote to the Claimant explaining that it was not acceptable for a party simply to inform the Tribunal that they would not be attending a hearing of which they had been given due notice. The Claimant was ordered to write to the Tribunal, marked for my attention and copying in the Respondent, by 17 February 2020, explaining why he did not attend the hearing and providing medical evidence showing that he was too unwell to attend. He was also ordered to provide medical evidence, for example a letter from his GP, showing when he was likely to be fit to attend the hearing.[3]On 10 February 2020 the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal as follows: ‘In response to the correspondence, I include copies of my medical report. Upon advice from Dr Siddique he has insisted that you contact him for further medical details. Please do not share any of my medical documents with the SIA due to the sensitive nature of the information. Case Number: 3202244/2019[4]Attached to the email was a letter dated 4 February 2020. The letter did not confirm that the Claimant had been too unwell to attend the preliminary hearing, nor did it give a prognosis. Indeed, it merely copied in to the letter a summary of the Claimant’s medical records. The only record relating to 2020 recorded that the Claimant attended on 4 February 2020 and that the problem was ‘foot pain’. There was nothing in that document which provided a good excuse for the Claimant’s non-attendance. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not for the Tribunal to contact a party’s GP on their behalf.[5]The correspondence was reviewed by Employment Judge Speker on 21 February 2020, who pointed out that the Claimant had not complied with my order and directing that he reply by 4 March 2020. Judge Speker further ordered that ‘if you wish to continue with your claim you must confirm this’. No further correspondence has been received from the Claimant.[6]The Claimant failed to attend the hearing. He then failed to comply with my original order to provide medical evidence which justified his non-attendance and which indicated when he would be fit to attend the hearing. Notwithstanding the extension of time granted to him by Judge Speker, he has still failed to provide that evidence. Moreover, despite Judge Speker’s order requiring him to confirm that he wishes to continue with his claim, he has not done so.[7]In all the circumstances, the Claimant’s claims are struck out pursuant to rule Rule 37(1)(d) because it has not been actively pursued.[8]The final hearing listed for 8 to 10 December 2020 has been vacated (cancelled).