Mrs J Bilotiene v Simply Serve Ltd: 6002173/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim is dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 (Non-attendance) of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“the Rules”).REASONS
[2]The Claimant presented her claim form on 21 January 2025 and it was acknowledged by the Tribunal on 25 February 2025.[3]On 25 February 2025 the Tribunal sent the parties a notice of preliminary hearing for case management to be held by telephone on 9 June 2025 at 12:00 (“the Hearing”). This was sent to the parties via the portal.[4]On 8 May 2025 the parties were told, again via the Portal, that the Response had been accepted and in the same correspondence the Claimant was ordered “to supply the Respondent and the Tribunal with the further particulars sought in the underlined section of the Response document by 22nd May 2025”. The Parties were further reminded of the Hearing.[5]The Respondent received no correspondence from the Claimant. On 27 May 2025 the Respondent sent a draft case management agenda and list of issues to the Claimant. The Claimant did not reply to the correspondence, nor did she 1 of 3 reply to correspondence from the Respondent of 5 June 2025 sending those documents to the Tribunal.[6]The Claimant was not in attendance at the start of the Hearing. I asked the Clerks to call her, which they did. At around 12:14 pm the Claimant told the Clerk that she would join the hearing but I was not given any explanation for her failure to attend at the start of the Hearing.[7]At 12:22 the Claimant still had not joined the Hearing and I asked the Clerks to confirm if the Claimant had made clear that she had the joining instructions for the Hearing. I asked for a further update at 12:33.[8]At 12:42 the Clerks confirmed that the Claimant had said that she had the link for the Hearing. They tried calling her again and her phone went to voicemail. The Claimant did not attend the Hearing.[9]Rule 47 of the Rules provides: Non-attendance 47. If a party fails to attend or to be represented at a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it must consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.[10]At the Hearing, taking into account the information available to me as set out above, I concluded that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the claim pursuant to Rule 47 because:10.1 the Claimant had been given notice of the Hearing on 25 February 2025;10.2 the Tribunal had reminded the Claimant of the Hearing on 8 May 2025 (in correspondence to which the Claimant did respond);10.3 the Claimant had then failed to respond to or to engage with the Respondent and failed to comply with the Tribunal’s order of 8 May 2025.10.4 the Claimant made no subsequent contact with the Respondent in response to its correspondence of 27 May or 5 June 2025.10.5 the Claimant failed to attend the Hearing despite indicating that she would do so.[11]The hearing concluded at 12:46 after I had dismissed the claim. 2 of 3