T Kanane v Young & Co’s Brewery plc: 6005766/2024
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:- The Claimant’s claim is dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.REASONS
[1]This was listed to be the first day of four days for a final hearing in this race and religious discrimination case. The Respondent’s representative has attended. There has been no attendance from the Claimant.[2]The Tribunal has attempted to contact the Claimant by phone and by sending an urgent message to the two email addresses that the Claimant has used to contact the Tribunal in the past. The last email indicated that the case would start at 12pm and requested an urgent response. It warned the Claimant that the Tribunal may be asked to dismiss the case due to the Claimant’s non-attendance and noncommunication with the Tribunal.[3]There has been no communication from the Claimant despite the efforts made by the Tribunal this morning to contact the Claimant.[4]In these circumstances, the Respondent applies for the case to be heard in the parties’ absence or dismissed under Rule 47. This Rule is worded as follows: “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 enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.”[5]The Tribunal has been taken by the Respondent to the most recent communication from the Claimant. This was on 24 February 2026. It claimed to have complied with the Tribunal’s direction at paragraph 24 of the Case Management Order sent on 12 February 2026 that witness statements be exchanged by this date, including the Claimant’s own statement. However, the Claimant has never exchanged his witness statement and did not do so by this deadline. In addition, the Claimant did not communicate with the Tribunal by 23 June 2026 - as directed in paragraph 33 - to confirm that he was ready for the hearing, or if not, to explain why this was not the case.[6]We have checked with the Respondent whether the Respondent has had any more recent communication with the Claimant. There has been no further communication between Respondent and Claimant since 24 February 2026, over four months ago.[7]Although the Claimant appeared to be engaging with the Tribunal by attending the Preliminary Hearing on 10 February 2026, the Claimant has not engaged with the Tribunal since. He is in breach of Tribunal orders issued at the hearing on 10 February 2026 and has failed to attend today without providing any good reason for his non-attendance.[8]In those circumstances it would not be appropriate to postpone the case to allow him a further opportunity to attend. There is such a demand on the Tribunal’s limited resources that to do so would be a disproportionate allocation of those resources to the Claimant at the expense of other tribunal users.[9]It is not necessary to proceed to hear evidence from the Respondent, which in any event could not be called until tomorrow on the timetable set out at the Preliminary Hearing, and with witnesses having not attended on the first day of the preliminary hearing. The Respondent’s witness statements refute the factual case which the Claimant advances in support of his complaints. There is a floating case that the Tribunal will be able to start hearing today, 29 June 2026, if the Claimant’s case concludes today rather than await the arrival of the Respondent’s witnesses tomorrow is dismissed. In the circumstances the course of action most in accordance with the overriding objective set out in Rule 3 of dealing with cases fairly and justly, is to dismiss the Claimant’s claim under Rule 47 for the Claimant’s non-attendance.[10]These reasons were given orally on the morning of the hearing. I indicated I would also set them out in writing, so the Claimant can understand why his claim has been dismissed.