Mr Palmer Olowu v Fast Track Management Services Ltd: 3202468/2019
JUDGMENT
The Claims are struck out.REASONS
[1]The Claimant did not attend, did not send a representative, and did not contact the Tribunal. At 10:20 I commenced the hearing. In the presence of the Respondent’s representative I telephoned the number given by the Claimant in his claim form. The number was answered. I checked that it was the Claimant who had answered and it was. He asked who was calling him. I identified myself, said that I was in the Tribunal for the preliminary hearing. I asked the reason why he was not at the hearing. The Claimant said that he was at his son’s mother’s house for the weekend, but she was not well today so he had stayed there. He did not ask for an adjournment. He expressed no surprise at the call, and did not say that he was unaware of the hearing. I brought the call to a conclusion.[2]I referred the representative for the Respondent to the Rules of Procedure, Rule 47: “Non-attendance Case Number: 3202468/2019 47. If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. 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.”[3]The heading of this section of the Rules is headed “Rules common to all kinds of hearing”, and so applied to this hearing.[4]The representative of the Respondent asked that the claims be struck out for non attendance rather than to proceed in his absence.[5]Having considered what the Claimant had said, I decided so to do. There was no good reason for his non attendance, there was no reason why the Claimant had not notified the Tribunal before the hearing, and he had not asked for an adjournment.