Mr M Iqbal v Sayeda Logistics Ltd: 3300387/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim is dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.REASONS
[1]The Tribunal provide these written reasons on their own initiative. Oral reasons were given at the hearing however the claimant was not present to hear them, and the Tribunal consider it important that the claimant know the reasons why the claim was dismissed.[2]Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 states as follows: ‘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]The claimant did not attend the hearing on 29 January 2025 and did not provide any explanation to the Tribunal or the respondent for his nonattendance.[4]The Tribunal checked the Tribunal’s correspondence inbox, and nothing had been received from the claimant. The Tribunal also telephoned the telephone number on file for the claimant on two occasions which was not Case Number: 3300387/2022 answered. The Tribunal also checked that the claimant had not attended the Tribunal in person by mistake, the hearing scheduled to take place via video.[5]The Tribunal gave additional time for the claimant to attend and by 10.20am the claimant had not done so; the hearing having been scheduled to start at 10am.[6]The Tribunal were satisfied that the claimant had received notice of the hearing, it having been sent to him on 11 September 2024 via the email address provided on his ET1.[7]The respondent confirmed that the claimant had not complied with any of the case management orders made on 11 September 2024 and had not actively pursued his claim.[8]The purpose of the hearing today was for a final hearing. I considered that it was not possible to proceed in the claimant's absence because he had not provided any evidence in support of his claim.[9]In all of the circumstances, I therefore dismissed the claim owing to the claimant’s non-attendance and pursuant to rule 47 above. Approved by: