A Crowe v Norse Group Ltd: 3301598/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim is dismissed in full.REASONS
[1]The Claimant’s ET1 was issued on 6 February 2024. The Claimant complained of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and was seeking other payments. An ET3 Response was filed on 4 April 2024 denying the complaints.[2]On 11 June 2024 the Claimant was notified about today’s private preliminary hearing for case management, however she did not attend and made no contact with the Tribunal. I specifically asked the Tribunal staff to check the email inbox and was informed that there had been nothing received from the Claimant.[3]On 10 and 11 June 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the Claimant to ask her to confirm if she objected to the change of the name of the Respondent. The Claimant did not respond.[4]On 11 June 2024 the Claimant was asked to complete a case management agenda for use at today’s hearing. The Claimant did not do so.[5]On 11 June 2024 the Claimant was directed to provide details of remedy sought by 25 June 2024. The Respondent tells me that the Claimant failed to comply.[6]The Respondent tells me that on 11 July 2024 the Respondent applied for a strike out of the claim due to breach of Tribunal directions and failure to actively pursue her claim. I have not seen that application as it was not put before me today, however the Respondent informs me that the Claimant did not respond to that application.[7]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 or proceed with the hearing in the absence of the 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 party’s absence.”[8]Having assured myself that nothing had been received from the Claimant since bringing her claim, and given the information provided by the Respondent, I formed the view that the Claimant had been aware of today’s hearing and had chosen not to take part.[9]I therefore dismissed the claim under Rule 47.[10]It was unnecessary for me to consider the Respondent’s application under Rule 37 today. The Respondent did not make an application for costs against the Claimant today but informs me that it reserves the right to do so if the claim is resurrected. In such a case it will then be open to the Respondent to resubmit the strike out application.[11]The final hearing in this matter is now cancelled.