Mr G Cripps v P Jeahaan (T/a Shell Londis): 3310516/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The proceedings are dismissed in full under Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.REASONS
[1]Today’s hearing had been listed as an in person hearing for case management. I conducted the first such hearing in this matter on 19 April 2024. The legal issues were clarified at that hearing and a stay of proceedings was granted for six months for reasons which are not necessary to repeat here.[2]The matter was listed for a further hearing to finalise the directions. That was due to take place on 15 November 2024. That hearing was postponed due to lack of judicial resource.[3]The hearing was re-listed for 27 February 2025. Neither party attended that hearing and I postponed it. I was made aware afterwards that the Claimant could not attend due to attending a funeral and also work.[4]I re-listed the matter to take place today. I warned the parties that if they failed to attend today the claim or the response may be struck out under Rule 38 for failure to actively pursue either, or the claim may be dismissed under Rule 47 for nonattendance.[5]A notice of hearing was sent to the parties on 10 March 2025.[6]Neither party attended today. A search of the Tribunal’s email inbox did not reveal any correspondence form either side.[7]Rule 47 provides as follows: “Non-attendance 47. 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.”[8]Rule 3 provides the following: “Overriding objective 3.—(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. (2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, so far as practicable—(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing(b) dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues,(c) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings,(d) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues, and(e) saving expense. (3) The Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it— (a) exercises any power under these Rules, or (b) interprets any rule or practice direction. (4) The parties and their representatives must— (a) assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective, and (b) co-operate generally with each other and with the Tribunal.”[9]I have no information to explain the non-attendance from either party. I am satisfied that both parties were aware of today’s hearing and have again chosen not to attend.[10]I am mindful of the impact upon other tribunal users waiting patiently in the queue for their tribunal hearings. I am not minded to postpone a further time. My warning to the parties on 3 March 2025 was clear about the consequences of nonattendance.[11]At 10:20am I determined that the case should be dismissed in full under Rule 47 due to non-attendance as that would be in furtherance of the overriding objective of the tribunal to avoid further time and costs being wasted. I was particularly mindful that two preliminary hearings could have been given to other tribunal users in this time which has now been wasted.[12]The claim is therefore dismissed in full. Approved by: