Mr I Kasparas v Wizz Air UK Ltd: 3310521/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim is dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rule of Procedure 2013.REASONS
[1]The Tribunal provide these written reasons on their own initiative. Oral reasons were given at the hearing however the claimant was not present to hear them, and the Tribunal consider it important that the claimant know the reasons why the claim was dismissed.[2]Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 states as follows: 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 that 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 the party’s absence.[3]The claimant did not attend the hearing on 17 April 2024 and did not provide any explanation to the Tribunal or the respondent for his non-attendance. The Tribunal checked the Tribunal’s correspondence inbox and nothing had been received from the claimant. The Tribunal also telephoned the telephone number on file for the claimant which was not answered. Case Number: 3310521/2023[4]The Tribunal gave additional time for the claimant to attend and by 2.25pm the claimant had not done so; the hearing having been scheduled to start at 2pm.[5]There was a previous hearing on 5 April 2024 at which the claimant did not attend and did not provide any explanation for the non-attendance. That hearing had been adjourned to today to afford the claimant an opportunity to attend.[6]The Tribunal were satisfied that the claimant had received notice of the hearing, it having been sent to him on 8 April 2024 via the email address provided on his ET1.[7]The respondent confirmed that the claimant had not engaged with them since issuing his claim and considered that the claim was not being actively pursued.[8]The purpose of the hearing today was to clarify and better understand the claimant’s complaints and this was not possible in his absence.[9]In all of the circumstances I therefore dismissed the claim owing to the claimant’s non-attendance and pursuant to rule 47 above.