Ms B Lock v The Chiltern Brewery Company Ltd: 3315241/2023
JUDGMENT
The claim is dismissed in its entirety.REASONS
[1]By an order of the Tribunal dated 3 September 2024, this case was listed for a preliminary hearing on 30 October 2024 by CVP. That hearing was postponed by a letter dated 29 October 2024. A further notice of hearing was sent to the parties on 13 November 2024 indicating that today’s hearing would take place by CVP.[2]Having read the file in advance of the hearing, I asked the clerk of the Tribunal to send an email to the Claimant ( the Tribunal has no contact telephone number for the Claimant), indicating a telephone number by which she could join the CVP hearing. This email was sent at 11.05am on 18 February 2025.[3]The hearing was adjourned to 11.30am to allow the Claimant time to receive the email and to join by telephone. She failed to do so and gave no response to the email to indicate any reason why she was unable to attend. 6.2 Strike out Judgment – claim - rule 37 Case No:3315241/2023[4]The Respondent’s counsel submitted that his solicitor had also attempted to contact the Claimant in advance of today’s hearing but received no response. He also indicated that the Claimant had failed to engage in the agreement of a list of issues, as ordered on 3 September 2024.[5]The Respondent made an application that the claim be dismissed under rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, on the basis that the Claimant had failed to attend.[6]Having considered all the circumstances, including the fact that both the Tribunal and the Respondent’s solicitor have attempted to contact the Claimant to ensure that she can participate either online, or via the telephone, the Tribunal has concluded that the Claimant has, for the second time, failed to attend a hearing designed to consider and advance her claim.[7]The Tribunal also noted that the Claimant had had notice of this hearing since November 2024 and had not indicated to either the Tribunal, nor to the Respondent’s solicitor at any time prior to today, that she was not available, nor unable to attend the hearing.[8]The Tribunal took into account the overriding objective at rule 3 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, in particular avoiding delay and saving expense.[9]The Tribunal concluded that this claim should be dismissed under rule 47 on the grounds that the Claimant has failed to attend the hearing, for the second time and is therefore failing to pursue her claim.[10]The Tribunal noted that, if the Claimant has reasons why she could not attend today’s hearing it is open to her to apply for reconsideration under rule 69. If she chooses to do so, she is asked to make the application in writing, to include her detailed reasons for her nonattendance today, together with any evidence to support that, including, if appropriate medical evidence. Approved by:[1]The Tribunal has considered the application for reconsideration contained in the Claimant’s email to the Tribunal on 10 June 2025, no response having been received by the Respondent.[2]The Claimant’s application makes reference to her previous applications for reconsideration received on 22 and 23 March 2025. This second application for reconsideration suggests that I have “failed to resolve” the fact that the Claimant did not access the hearing on 18 February 2025 by telephone and failed to “strike out” the dismissal order made at that hearing.[3]As set out in the reasoned Judgment on 18 February 2025 and reiterated in the reasons denying the reconsideration on 23 May 2025, attempts were made to contact the Claimant at the time of the hearing, but she did not respond. She also had not responded to the Tribunal or the Respondent’s representative prior to the hearing.[4]The Claimant’s second application does not put forward any further reasons for reconsideration than were provided in her first application, which have been addressed.[5]Rule 68(1) Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 states that; “(1) The Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.”[6]The Claimant repeatedly refers to actions and correspondence with HMCTS over which neither myself, nor any other Employment Judge had knowledge or control. These do not amount to judgments which could be subject to reconsideration[7]None of the points raised by the Claimant in her email of 10 June, or her previous emails which are quoted give rise to any reason which indicates that reconsideration would be in the interests of justice.[8]The decision of the Tribunal is that it is not necessary in the interests of justice to alter the Judgment which was sent to the parties on 8 March 2025, or the reconsideration made on 27 May 2025 Date: 5 August 2025 Approved by