Mr J Shanks v Class One Traffic Management Ltd: 4100743/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim is struck out in terms of rule 38 (1) (d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.[2]Given that the claimant has not submitted a response to the employer’s contract claim, the employer’s contract claim is granted. The claimant shall pay to the respondent the sum of £2192.60 in respect thereof.REASONS
[1]The claimant submitted a claim to the Tribunal in which he claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent. In his ET1 claim form, he also ticked the box for disability discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. The only details provided of these claims was that he stated “they have unfairly kept my last wage for van damage done when I was sent out to work in a storm then they changed this to training.”[2]A preliminary hearing took place before Judge Tinnion on 23 June 2025. Judge Tinnion made a number of orders which required to be complied with by 18 August 2025 largely requiring the claimant to provide specification as to why his claim of unfair dismissal should proceed given his admitted position that he did not have two years qualifying service and for him to provide further details of his disability and precisely what claims he was making in respect of this.[3]It should be noted that there was some initial difficulty regarding lodging of the respondent’s ET3 however the respondent’s ET3 was allowed to be lodged late. In the ET3, the respondent sought strikeout of the claimant’s claims on the basis they had no reasonable prospect of success. This application was subsequently the subject of a separate application. A preliminary hearing was due to take place on 13 November 2025. On that date, the respondent’s representative was present and ready to proceed. There was no appearance on behalf of the claimant.[4]The claimant subsequently contacted the Tribunal but did not provide any reasons for his non attendance. He produced a document dated 3 December 2025 which he subsequently stated was an application to amend. It did not properly address any of the points set out in Judge Tinnion’s order. The application to amend was opposed by the respondent. An open preliminary hearing was fixed in order to deal with the application for strikeout. The respondents clarified that in addition to seeking strikeout of the claims on substantive grounds, they also sought strikeout on the basis that the claim was not being actively pursued.[5]At the hearing on 18 February 2025, which was an open preliminary hearing to deal with the strikeout issue, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the claimant at the appointed time. I directed the clerk to telephone the claimant at the number on the tribunal file. The clerk did so and advised that it was going straight to voicemail. Having waited ten minutes past the start time of the hearing (until 10:25am), I decided that it would be appropriate to proceed in the absence of the claimant. Respondent’s submission[6]The respondent’s submission was that the claim should be struck out on the basis that it was not being actively pursued by the claimant. They set out the history above. There had been no substantive engagement by the claimant with the tribunal process. The claimant had been given very detailed instructions by Employment Judge Tinnion. The claimant had been ordered to send copies of his medical records. He had been ordered to provide details of the statutory basis on which he believed he could make a claim of unfair dismissal despite his lack of qualifying service. He had been asked for details of his disability discrimination claim and asked for a schedule of loss. The claimant had not complied with any of these. He had produced a very short medical report advising that he had suffered an accident around 20 years ago. The document which he referred to as an impact statement did not give any details about the effect of his impairment on his ability to carry out day to day activities but simply provided details as to why he considered it appropriate to take cannabis for pain relief.[7]With regard to the counterclaim, the respondents were insisting on this. It had been properly registered. The claimant had not provided any defence to the counterclaim. This point, it had been noted and brought to his attention in the note issued following the last preliminary hearing that the claimant had not attended. Discussion and decision[8]I considered that before making a decision on strikeout, I required to take into account all of the information before me. This included the pleadings such as they are and also the various points made by the respondents in their substantive application for strikeout on the basis that the claims as currently set out had no reasonable prospect of success.[9]I noted the history of the case. The claimant simply did not turn up to the last case management hearing. He has not provided any explanation for this. The claimant has not complied with the orders which were made by Judge Tinnion back in June. The case is no closer to being in a fit state to proceed to a hearing than it was back then.[10]As currently pled, there are serious difficulties with the claimant’s claims. The claimant appears to simply not accept that his lack of qualifying service means that he cannot make a claim of ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal. He makes a number of points which would be relevant to such a claim but the fact of the matter is that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear such a claim given he does not have two years qualifying service. Despite being invited to do so he has not indicated any matter which would suggest that this is one of the few type of cases which can proceed where there is no qualifying service.[11]The disability discrimination claim has been stated but has not been fleshed out in any way. It is quite impossible to ascertain that there is a claim which the Tribunal would be able to deal with under the Equality Act. The claimant’s position appears to be that taken at its highest, he is disabled and he takes cannabis for pain relief. He was then dismissed for failing a drugs test on the basis that he had cocaine or cocaine metabolites in his system. The link between this and his disability cannot be ascertained. The claimant has asserted that he is due various sums following the termination of his employment. The respondent has set out their position clearly which was that the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct and is not entitled to notice pay and that all holiday pay and other entitlements were paid. The respondents have also issued their counterclaim however we do not have any idea as to what the claimant’s position is in relation to this since he does not seen fit to lodge any defence.[12]It is against this background that I have to look at whether the claimant can be said to actively pursuing his claim. Whilst he has sent some documentation to the Tribunal over the last few months, this does not address any of the points raised and in particular, having been given very specific instructions by Judge Tinnion, he has completely ignored these. He did not turn up for the last case management discussion and he has not turned up for this preliminary hearing which he was told was a preliminary hearing which would be dealing with the issue of strikeout.[13]In all the circumstances, I considered that there was no realistic prospect of the case proceeding to a fair trial. The claimant has been given ample opportunities to set out his case and deal with matters appropriately but has not done so. There is nothing to suggest that this will change in the future. I therefore advised the respondent’s representative on the day that the claim would be struck out.[14]With regard to the counterclaim, the situation is that the claim has been made and no defence lodged. The respondents are effectively seeking a default judgment and I can see no reason why this should not be granted for the sums claimed.