Mr M Aden v Gist Ltd: 3312384/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim is struck out.REASONS
[1]Today’s private preliminary hearing was listed for case management.[2]The Claimant did not attend. The Tribunal staff checked the Tribunal email inbox however there was no correspondence from the Claimant where he was either seeking a postponement or seeking to explain his nonattendance.[3]I waited a further ten minutes for the Claimant to arrive, however he did not do so.[4]The Respondent stated that the Claimant had not complied with the Tribunal direction dated 11 March 2024 to provide additional information concerning his claim by 25 March 2024. No additional information has been received.[5]The Respondent states that it contacted the Claimant on 4, 8 and 17 April 2024 to engage with him and to obtain the additional information from him, 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February Case No: 3312384/2023 however he did not respond.[6]The Claimant did not complete a Case Management Agenda in advance of this hearing. The Respondent has done so, and it has also attempted to produce a draft list of issues without any input from the Claimant. That list of issues could not be advanced due to the paucity of information in the ET1 claim form and the apparent failure of the Claimant to engage.[7]It appeared to me that the Claimant had received notice of the hearing but had chosen not to attend, and further that he had chosen not to comply with the directions of the Tribunal.[8]I therefore decided that the appropriate course would be to strike out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) (failure to actively pursue her claim) and Rule 47 (non-attendance).