Miss N Kabra v Mr T Baris: 3303528/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claim is struck out pursuant to rules 38(1)(b),(c),(d) and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.REASONS
[1]The claimant presented her claim on 27 March 2024. The claimant ticked the boxes for religion or belief discriminaiton, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. Apart from that no details of her claim were given.[2]The respondent has not filed a response.[3]On 17 January 2025 the claimant was sent notice of this final hearing. Attached to the notice were orders for the claimant to disclose relevant documents to the respondent by 31 January 2025, send to the respondent a witness statement by 14 February 2025 and to send to the tribunal by email electronic copies of the statements intended to be relied upon by 10 April 2025. Whilst it is not known if the claimant complied with the orders for disclosure and a witness statement, the claimant has failed to comply with the order to send to the tribunal copies of her witness statement.[4]At 9.07 on 16 April 2025 (yesterday) the claimant was emailed by Watford Listing as follows:- “Ahead of the upcoming hearing 17/04 please can both parties provide the documents that they wish to use for the above hearing. Please can this be done as soon as possible to prevent any delays to the proceedings.”[5]At 4.50pm on 16 April 2025 the claimant responded as follows:- “We are homeless abroad Please permanently remove this email which will be permanently deleted. Please replace with [a new email address] We are only happy to work with international police as Watford Tribunal are disregarding every other case especially with Greggs Plc and Martin Sklan and Co Chartered Accountants and Raja Kaasheef.”[6]The claimant is clearly aware of this hearing.[7]No reason has been given why she is not in attendance save that she is abroad homeless.[8]No application to postpone this hearing has been made.[9]The claimant has not given any details of her claim in her claim form.[10]The claimant has failed to comply with the case management order to send to the tribunal copies of all relevant documents.[11]In my judgment the claimant’s conduct of the proceedings has been unreasonable, and the claim is not being actively pursued.[12]Accordingly, I strike out the claimant’s claim on the following grounds:-12.1 Rule 38(1)(b) – the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the claimant have been unreasonable.12.2 Rule 38(1)(c) - for non-compliance with an order of the tribunal.12.3 Rule 38(1)(d) - the claim has not been actively pursued.12.4 Rule 47 – the claimant has failed to attend Approved by: