Mr C P Hill v R and J Lubbock Builders: 3302476/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claims are struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure for a failure to prosecute.[2]This matter came before me today listed for a two day Full Merits Hearing. The Claimant pursues a claim for unfair dismissal and other payments.[3]The claim was originally listed to be heard in the Norwich Employment Tribunal today and tomorrow. At 11.58 yesterday the claim was switched from Norwich to the Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal. The parties were notified of this switch.[4]This morning, the administration informed me that they had received a telephone call from the Claimant indicating that until he received the email notifying him of the switch from Norwich to Bury St Edmunds, he had no knowledge of the hearing that had been listed for 8 and 9 August 2024. He said that he could not attend today as he was working and requested a postponement.[5]There was therefore no attendance from the Claimant today.[6]There was also no attendance from the Respondent. The notice of hearing[7]I had the advantage of having the Tribunal file in front of me albeit that there were several emails which I subsequently tracked down through the digital system which had not been placed on the file.[8]The notice of hearing, together with Case Management Orders, were sent out to the parties on 14 May 2024.[9]That notice was emailed to the Claimant on the very same email address that the email was sent yesterday, notifying him of the switch to Bury St Edmunds and on the same email address that he then responded on.[10]It is clear, therefore, that the Claimant must have received the notice of hearing on 14 May 2024.[11]With respect to the Respondents, they were originally represented by the Kroner Group and the notice of hearing was sent to the Kroner Group on 14 May 2024.[12]I have subsequently tracked down an email which was not on the file from the Kroner Group, dated 25 July 2024, indicating that they were no longer instructed. That email did not give a new email address for the Tribunal to contact the Respondents.[13]I understand from the administration that yesterday, when they attempted to contact the Respondents to inform them of the switch to Bury, they contacted Kroners and Kroners then gave them an email address for the Respondent. The notification of the switch was then sent to the Respondents. They have not attended today. Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.[14]Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, says as follows: Striking out 37.—(1) At any stage of the proceedings, either on its own initiative or on the application of a party, a Tribunal may strike out all or part of a claim or response on any of the following grounds— (a)that it is scandalous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success; (b)that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant or the respondent (as the case may be) has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious; (c)for non-compliance with any of these Rules or with an order of the Tribunal; (d)that it has not been actively pursued; (e)that the Tribunal considers that it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing in respect of the claim or response (or the part to be struck out). (2) A claim or response may not be struck out unless the party in question has been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations, either in writing or, if requested by the party, at a hearing. (3) Where a response is struck out, the effect shall be as if no response had been presented, as set out in rule 21 above.[15]Considering the above and considering the failure of the Claimant to attend today, I have taken into account the emails that I have seen and his telephone call to the administration. He says he had no knowledge of the hearing until yesterday. In the absence of further evidence, I do not accept that. It is clear to me from the evidence in front of me, which is documentary evidence, that the notice of hearing was sent to the very same email address that he was corresponding on yesterday with the administration.[16]This is the Claimant’s claim and it is for him to actively pursue it. By not attending today he has failed to do so. I am unaware whether any of the Case Management Orders in the notice of hearing have been complied with but nevertheless, this is the Claimant’s claim that has been listed for some time and he has failed to attend at the Tribunal.[17]Accordingly, I have taken the decision that the Claimant has not actively pursued the claim and that the Claimant’s claim should be struck out and dismissed. They are.[18]I should point out that if the Claimant wishes to bring further evidence to my attention then he can apply for the decision to strike out his claim to be reconsidered.[19]In seeking such a reconsideration, further evidence would have to be produced to support the assertion that the Claimant had no knowledge of today’s hearing.