Mr M Coia v Portsonachan Wilderness Lodges Ltd: 4106683/2024
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that the claim is dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.REASONS
[1]A preliminary hearing to consider the identity of the claimant’s employer was scheduled to take place on 8 January 2025 at 10am by cloud video platform.[2]A notice of hearing was sent to the parties on 18 October 2024.[3]The claimant was represented in the course of proceedings by Mrs Aileen May, East Dunbartonshire Citizen’s Advice Bureau but it was noted that Mrs May would not represent the claimant at any hearing and that he would be acting as a litigant in person at any hearings.[4]An electronic bundle of documents went sent to the tribunal on behalf of the claimant on 2 January 2024 and a hard copy bundle was also received by the Tribunal in the subsequent days.[5]In advance of the hearing, the parties were invited to undertake a test to ensure they could join the virtual meeting room and take part in proceedings.[6]The claimant undertook said test in the afternoon of 7 January 2025.[7]The clerk emailed both parties at 17.05 on 7 January 2025 with log in details for the virtual hearing room for the hearing scheduled to take place at 10am the following morning. The claimant responded at 12.49am on 8 January 2025 stating “I will be there.”[8]At 10am on 8 January 2025, neither party was in attendance at the virtual hearing. Emails reminding them of the hearing was sent by the clerk in or around 10am. Two phone calls were placed to the claimant between 10am and 10.20. Both calls failed.[9]At approximately 10.15, the respondent arrived at the virtual hearing room. The hearing resumed at 10.23. The claimant continued to be absent without explanation.[10]In the absence of the claimant, I decided to dismiss the claim under Rule 47 of the ET Rules. I noted that it was unexpected for the claimant to be absent given his recent engagement with the tribunal in respect of his claim. However, he has a responsibility to attend and put forward his case. Appropriate enquiries were made by the clerk and the start of the hearing was delayed by 23 minutes. I felt that the hearing could not proceed in his absence given that were was a dispute in facts which required evidence from the claimant as well as the respondent. In considering the overriding objective of the ET Rules as well as Rule 47, it was appropriate to dismiss the claim.[11]It was explained to the respondent that in situations where a party does not attend a hearing and their claim is dismissed, that party may apply for reconsideration of the dismissal judgment where it is in the interests of justice to do so.