Mr D Ibraham v London Borough of Enfield: 3315334/2022
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s claim is Struck Out.REASONS
[1]By a single claim form presented on 21 December 2022, the Claimant brought complaints alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed from his position as Access Resources Integrated Services Support Officer, stating that, “The claim is about how my hospital letter was made public on the computer access and I have put this as in regards to Data Protection”.[2]The Respondent admitted dismissing the Claimant on the stated ground of redundancy, a potentially fair reason for dismissal.[3]On 9 July 2023, Employment Judge Hunt conducted a Private Preliminary Hearing which the Claimant failed to attend. That was adjourned to today with Judge Hunt recording as follows: “The Claimant has brought a claim for unfair dismissal. It was particularised in his ET1 Claim Form, filed validly and in time. The Respondent defends the claim. In his Claim Form the Claimant also makes a complaint that the Respondent breached Data Protection Legislation in relation to certain of his medical records. The Tribunal alerted the Claimant that it does not have jurisdiction to consider this complaint on 31 March 2023. By email to the Tribunal dated 14 April 2023, the Claimant indicated that his claim was not about unfair dismissal, but about data protection. However, it also stated that unfair dismissal was “a part of what I explained in my claim”.”[4]Case Management Orders had been suspended on 13 May 2023 pending the Hearing before Judge Hunt which was listed to determine whether the claim should be Struck Out.[5]Judge Hunt decided not to strike out the claim as it they did not consider it to be appropriate given that the nature of the claim remained unclear. If it was solely about an alleged breach of Data Protection Legislation, the claim would have been struck out.[6]On 11 July 2023, Judge Hunt Ordered that the Claimant was to write to the Tribunal and the Respondent by 4pm on 28 July 2023, to confirm whether or not he wished to pursue his claim for unfair dismissal.[7]No such communication has been received by the Respondent or the Tribunal from the Claimant.[8]In the early hours of this morning, Ms Hassan told me, she had received an email from the Claimant saying that he had explained to the Tribunal that he could not conduct Hearings by video. I noticed that this was placed on the first page of his ET1.[9]However, Judge Hunt listed this Hearing to be conducted by using the Cloud Video Platform (CVP) and said this, “If the Claimant wishes to change the format of the Hearing to a telephone Hearing or an in person Hearing, he must inform the Tribunal and the Respondent by 4pm on 28 July 2023.”[10]He did not do so.[11]The Claimant’s complaint of a breach of his personal data is not something within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. That claim is Struck Out for want of jurisdiction.[12]The Claimant has failed to actively pursue his complaint of unfair dismissal. He has not complied with the Tribunal’s directions of 9 July 2023.[13]For those reasons the claim is dismissed. 15 September 2023