Ms L Drew v Hengist Restaurant Aylesford Ltd: 6006573/2025
JUDGMENT
Rules 38 and 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out under rule 38 (1)(a) on the basis that the claimant did not have the necessary two years’ service and so it has no reasonable prospects of success.[2]The remaining claims are dismissed under rule 47 as the claimant failed to attend the hearing.REASONS
[1]The Tribunals sent a strike out warning letter to the claimant on 25 June 2025 notifying her that she did not have the necessary two years’ service and so was not entitled to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal except in certain specific circumstances which did not seem to apply in her case. She was given until 16 July 2025 to give her reasons in writing as to why the complaint of unfair dismissal should not be struck out. No reply was received and on that basis the complaint is struck out.[2]The remaining claims are for notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments. These have never been quantified or explained in detail. According to Page 1 of 2 Case Number 6006573/2025 the claim form she was not paid the one week’s notice paid to which she was entitled or her accumulated holiday pay.[3]The respondents attended the hearing and provided supporting documentation.[4]The claimant failed to attend the hearing and when contacted by telephone said that she had sent an email to the tribunal but that, in short she had a family emergency and would not be attending.[5]No earlier email could be detected but the claimant sent a subsequent email to confirm that she would not be attending. There was no application for an adjournment in that email or when talking to the Tribunal clerk.[6]No supporting documents have been provided by the claimant. Nor was there any response to the Tribunal’s letter asking the parties if they were ready for the hearing. By rule 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.”[7]In the circumstances, give them the limited nature of the remaining claims, the lack of any engagement by the claimant in preparation for the hearing and the absence of any request for an adjournment I concluded that the claim should now be dismissed. Approved by: