Mrs C Roberts v Manorcourt Care (Norfolk) Ltd: 3311362/2023
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out.REASONS
[1]The Claimant failed to attend the hearing listed for 3 June 2024. By a letter dated 3 June 2024 the Tribunal gave the Claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out because: it has not been actively pursued.[2]The Claimant has failed to make representations in writing why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The claim is therefore struck out.[3]Any future hearing in this matter is cancelled.[4]At 10:10am on 3 June 2024 I was provided with a copy of an email from the Claimant dated 3 June 2024 timed at 9:49am which read “Good morning, 11.6C Judgment – Reconsideration refused – claimant - rule 72 Case No: 3311362/2023 I’m currently in hospital so will be unable to attend today. Sorry for any inconvenience.”[5]An examination of the hearing bundle appeared to show non-compliance with Tribunal directions on the part of the Claimant, including the provision of information concerning her alleged disability and also additional information concerning the complaints she is seeking to bring to the Tribunal. It appeared that the Respondent sought this information from the Claimant on a number of occasions to no avail.[6]The hearing could not proceed in the absence of the Claimant. Whereas Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure permit a judge to dismiss the claim where there has been a failure to attend a hearing, I deemed that to be inappropriate in this case given the contents of the Claimant’s email. I therefore issued the Claimant with a strike out warning under Rule 37 on the basis that the claim was not being actively pursued.[7]The Claimant was notified that if she wished to object to the proposal, she should give her reasons in writing or request a hearing at which she could make them by 17 June 2024 which was two weeks later. The Claimant was further notified that at the same time she must provide medical evidence showing her hospitalisation which she says prevented her attendance at the hearing.[8]The Claimant failed to respond, and on 16 July, one month after that deadline expired, I struck out the claim under Rule 37 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued.[9]The Claimant’s correspondence of 28 August 2024 (which is the date the judgment was sent out) suggests that she had her telephone stolen, she was unable to attend the meeting on 12 June 2024 (which is understood to refer to the hearing of 3 June 2024) as she could not get on the internet and had no passwords, and her mental health had a big decline. The Claimant’s email refers to evidence but none was included, and whereas she refers to her wish to appeal, given that she has written to this Tribunal it is assumed she is asking for a reconsideration rather than an appeal as that is something which should have been directed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal instead.[10]Having considered all the points made by the Claimant, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The Claimant has consistently failed to actively progress her claim and to comply with case management orders or to respond to Tribunal correspondence, and accordingly the application for reconsideration is refused.