Mr M F Wong v Kensington International Ltd: 3305452/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claim is dismissed under rule 47 following the claimant’s non-attendance at the hearing today.[2]The respondent’s application for the claimant to pay its costs is refused.REASONS
[1]The claimant did not attend the hearing today and has not been in touch with the tribunal since he presented his claim.[2]The claimant did not comply with the orders to prepare for the hearing which were sent with the notice of hearing in an email dated 19 December 2024. The notice of hearing was sent to the email address given by the claimant on his claim form.[3]The claimant emailed the respondent on 16 January 2025 to say that he had not received the email on 19 December 2024. He did not copy his email to the tribunal, and did not contact the tribunal to ask for an update. He gave an alternative email address to the respondent but did not give that address to the tribunal. It is up to the claimant to ensure that the tribunal has up to date contact details for him so that it can contact him about his claim.[4]The respondent’s representative sent the claimant a copy of the file of papers for the hearing by post and to the claimant’s new email address on 20 Page 1 of 3 February 2025. The claimant did not reply. The file contained a copy of the notice of the hearing today.[5]The hearing today was due to start at 10.00am. When the claimant did not arrive the clerk called his mobile phone but it was not answered. She left a voicemail message but the claimant did not call back. She emailed the claimant on his new email but he did not reply.[6]I waited until 10.15am but the claimant had not arrived and had not contacted the tribunal. The hearing started. The respondent’s solicitor said that the claimant had not been in touch since 16 January 2025.[7]I decided that the claim should be dismissed under rule 47 which applies when a party does not attend a hearing. I considered this carefully, particularly as the claimant had told the respondent that he had not received the notice of hearing. However, the tribunal sent the claimant notice of the hearing to the address the claimant had given. Even if he did not receive the tribunal’s email, the claimant made no attempt to follow up after 16 January and he was sent a copy of the notice of hearing by the respondent when it sent him the file of papers one week ago. The claimant has failed to attend today or explain why he has not attended. It may be that he has decided not to pursue his claim.[8]Dismissal of the claim in these circumstances brings the claim to an end without the claimant being able to present his evidence and have it fully heard. I considered whether a lesser sanction would be appropriate. I took into account that the claimant is unrepresented and that it appears from the claim form and his email that English may not be his first language. In particular I considered whether another hearing date should be arranged. However, there was no indication that the claimant would attend the hearing on another date. I decided, given the claimant’s lack of contact with the tribunal, his failure to attend today, and the delay which would arise from arranging another hearing date, that the claim should be dismissed.[9]This judgment brings the claim to an end. My decision can be reconsidered if there is a good reason why Mr Wong was unable to attend today. If he wants to ask me to reconsider, Mr Wong must write to the tribunal and the respondent, explaining why he did not attend today and why he did not let the tribunal know that he was unable to attend. He must provide evidence to show why he was unable to attend. I will not be able to consider any application for reconsideration which has not been copied to the respondent, because that is a requirement of the tribunal rules.[10]The time limit for making an application for reconsideration is 14 days from the date on which this judgment is sent to the parties.[11]The respondent asked me to make an order that Mr Wong should pay the respondent’s legal costs. I refused the respondent’s application. Costs are the exception in the Employment Tribunal, not the rule. While the claimant’s non-compliance with the tribunal’s orders amounts to grounds to make an application under rule 74(3), and his non-attendance without giving reasons Page 2 of 3 today amounts to unreasonable conduct giving grounds under rule 74(2)(a), I decided not to exercise my discretion to make a costs order. I took into account that the claimant has been unrepresented throughout and that English may not be his first language. Approved by: