Ms E Owusu v SCCL Operations Ltd: 4100464/2026
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that all claims brought under claim number 4100464/2026 are dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.REASONS
[1]The claimant entered a claim for unfair dismissal, race discrimination and breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) on 10 March 2026. She said she was employed from 23 June 2025 to 10 December 2025.[2]A preliminary hearing (PH) on case management was listed for 21 July 2026 at 10 am. Notice of the preliminary hearing was sent to the claimant (C) at the address indicated on her ET1 and was also emailed to C at the email address indicated on her claim form. The email was ‘bounced’ as undelivered.[3]On 9 April 2026, the respondent (R) entered a response, disputing her claims.[4]On 13 April 2026, the Tribunal ordered C to provide written representations regarding why her unfair dismissal complaint should not be dismissed in circumstances where C lacked two years’ qualifying service. The Order specified that unless written representations were received by 27 April 2026, the unfair dismissal complaint would be dismissed without further order. No representations were received. The hard copy of the Tribunal’s letter sent by post was returned undelivered by Royal Mail with a message, ‘not at this address’. The envelope bore the handwritten words, “RETURN TO SENDER NO LONGER IN THE COUNTRY”. The emailed version of the correspondence was sent to the email address provided on the ET1 and was again bounced.[5]On 19 May 2026, the Tribunal wrote to R’s representative and asked if they had an up to date alternative address for C (postal or email). R’s representative did not reply to this correspondence but Mr McArdle appeared for the respondent at the PH on 21 July 2026 and confirmed they did not. Mr McArdle further advised that R had prepared a bundle for the PH which they had sent to C on 17 July at her email address. He did not personally send the email so could not confirm if an ‘undeliverable’ message was received but in any event, no response was received from C. Mr McArdle advised that R had not received contact from C since her appeal correspondence.[6]C did not complete the PH Agenda as she was asked to do in the Tribunal’s letter of 13 March 2026.[7]C did not attend the PH on 21 July 2026. The clerk attempted to contact her shortly after the hearing was due to start at 10 am. Her mobile rang off and disconnected after a few rings. The clerk sent an email which was bounced as undeliverable. I delayed the start of the hearing until 10.15 am in case C should arrive late to the hearing. She did not.[8]When the hearing reconvened, Mr McArdle made an application that the claim be dismissed in full pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 He summarized the procedural history and the history of contact (or lack thereof) from C. He said that C had failed to actively pursue her claim. He submitted that R would be prejudiced by a postponement and put to additional expense (as would the Tribunal) in circumstances where C had not updated the Tribunal or the respondent of any relocated address and appeared, therefore, to have willfully abandoned her claim. He invited me to take into account the overriding objective in Rule 3 of the 2024 Rules, and noted that the objective of dealing with a case fairly and justly includes avoiding delay and saving expense.[9]I dismissed the claim orally under Rule 47. The claimant had received notice of the PH some four months before the hearing date. She had not sought a postponement. She had not informed the Tribunal of any change to her postal or email address. To the extent she did not receive the Tribunal’s correspondence of 13 March and 13 April 2026, she did not contact the Tribunal in the ensuing months to make any enquiries as to the progress of her claim or next steps. Various aspects of the complaints required clarified and particularised. It was not possible to carry on with the hearing and achieve the necessary clarification of the issues without the claimant in attendance, particularly in circumstances where she had not completed the PH Agenda.[10]I took all relevant circumstances into account. Based on the circumstances known to me, having made such enquiries as were practicable, it did not appear to me that the claimant wished to actively pursue her complaints or alternatively that she had unreasonably failed to do so and had unreasonably failed to attend the hearing. I considered that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective to dismiss the claim in the interests of avoiding further unnecessary waste of the Tribunal’s resources and unnecessary expense to the respondent.[11]C may apply for reconsideration of this judgment if she believes it to be necessary in the interests of justice within 14 days of the date it is sent to the parties. Rules 68-70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 set out the requirements for any such application and the process that would be followed in the event of such an application. On reconsideration, the decision to dismiss the claims may be confirmed, varied or revoked. If it is revoked, it may be taken again.