Mr P Mazurek v Scottish Action for Mental Health: 4103973/2024
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out in terms of rule 37 (1)(d) of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, because the claimant is not actively pursuing his claim, the claimant having been given the opportunity to set out reasons why the claim should not be struck out (or to seek a hearing) and no response was received.REASONS
[1]At a preliminary hearing on 2 July 2024 (which was the second preliminary hearing in this case) the claimant set out his position in relation to his claims. A Note was issued recording what had been said and ordering the claimant to provide information. A few days later the claimant raised issues about what had been said, seeking to postpone the hearing that had been fixed.[2]On 6 August 2024 the respondent’s agent wrote to the claimant and Tribunal asking that the claim be struck out as the claimant had failed to comply with the orders following the preliminary hearing to provide focus to his claim. Case No. 4103973/2024 Page 2[3]On 7 August 2024 the claimant wrote to the Tribunal asking it to “refute” the case management order. On 12 August 2024 the Tribunal suggested a case management preliminary hearing be held to clarify the issues the claimant had raised with a view to progressing matters. The claimant was asked to confirm if he was able to attend the hearing. He did not reply, the respondent’s agent having said they were free to attend.[4]On 16 August 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the parties, absent any communication from the claimant, referring to the overriding objective and the requirement that the parties work together. The parties were to set out what the outstanding issues were to ensure matters could progress expeditiously. The claimant was told to set out whether or not he still sought a postponement of the Hearing and why. A response was to be presented within 14 days.[5]On 21 August 2024 the respondent’s agent asked the claimant for information to allow the claim to progress following the letter from the Tribunal.[6]On 4 September 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant noting that no response had been received from him and he was to set out his position by return. A further remainder was issued on 9 September 2024.[7]On 26 September 2024 a legal officer wrote to the claimant noting that there had still been no response to the letter of 6 August despite requests that the claimant do so. An update was sought by 3 October 2024.[8]There having been no response to the request for information or update, the respondent asked that the claim be struck out on the grounds that the claimant was not actively pursuing it.[9]On 7 October 2024 the claimant was advised that a strike out application had been received on the grounds that he was not actively pursuing his claim and his response was sought.[10]On 16 October 2024, absent a response from the claimant, a formal strike out warning was issued to the claimant advising him that an Employment Judge would consider striking out his claim on the grounds that the claim has not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37 (1)(d) of the Rules contained in Case No. 4103973/2024 Page 3 Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The claimant was told to set out his reasons in writing if he disagreed by 30 October 2024 or to seek a hearing to do so. He was warning that if nothing is heard from him in that timescale, an Employment Judge will decide whether to strike out his claim.[11]There was no response to the strike out warning and there are no reasons given why the claim should not be struck out, and no hearing was sought.[12]The claimant has failed to actively pursue his claim and it is struck out. D Hoey