Mr S Secular-Cornell v MHS Homes Ltd: 6008706/2024
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows: The claim is dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.REASONS
[1]Today’s hearing was scheduled to start at 10 am and was listed for two days. It was intended to be the final hearing at which the Tribunal was to determine the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal.[2]By 10 am only the respondent’s side (Mr Hurd, Mr McCarthy, the respondent’s HR Manager, and its two witnesses) were present in the Cloud Video Platform (“CVP”) room.[3]My clerk telephoned the claimant on three occasions to ascertain the position but he did not answer his phone. She also re-sent him the CVP joining details, Page 1 of 4 in case he was having difficulties in doing so. He did not respond to any of her emails.[4]On 12 May 2025, the claimant made an application to stay the proceedings for health reasons relating to a forthcoming operation to remove cataracts and the need to protect his eyesight from extensive electronic correspondence. The respondent objected to his application.[5]On 16 May 2025, the application was refused by Employment Judge (“EJ”) Burge, on the basis that the claimant had provided no medical evidence stating that he was unable to participate in Tribunal proceedings or when he would be able to do so. That letter made it clear that the hearing remained listed for 3 and 4 July 2025.[6]The claimant sent an extremely brief witness statement by email on 30 May 2025 (running to less than one page of A4 and containing 8 bullet point paragraphs), which he then revised to include page references to the joint bundle by a further email on 11 June 2025. The latter email contained what appeared to be a further attempt to renew his application to stay the proceedings by the suggestion that given the ongoing wait for a hospital date and lack of legal representation, that the proceedings be placed with Acas. This would appear to have resulted in the further letter from EJ Burge dated 17 June 2025 which reiterated that the final hearing would proceed as listed.[7]Shortly after 10 am today, I was forwarded an exchange of emails between the parties that indicated that the claimant had renewed his request for postponement last week and provided medical evidence and that he had absented himself from the hearing on the basis that consideration of that application was outstanding.[8]I subsequently determined that his renewed request was made within an email dated 27 June 2025 which contained a screenshot of a letter from Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust and a reply of that same date from the respondent’s solicitors setting out grounds on which it objected to the stay of proceedings. For some reason, whilst these emails had been copied to the Tribunal, my clerk could not find them on our email system. Indeed, my clerk had to request copies from the respondent’s solicitors.[9]Having considered the renewed application and the respondent’s reply, I notified the parties by email from my clerk that I refused the claimant’s application.[10]For ease of reference, the contents of that letter are reproduced below: “EmploymentJudge Tsamados has asked me to write to the parties as follows:
[1]By 10 am today the Claimant had not joined the CVP hearing room. My clerk attempted to telephone him three (times) and re-sent the CVP joining details twice.[2]In the meantime I was forwarded email correspondence sent to the Tribunal’s generic email inbox which indicated that the Claimant was not attending because he was awaiting further consideration of his request for a postponement of the hearing for medical reasons, having submitted medical evidence in support. The respondent’s Page 2 of 4 reply was that the hearing was going ahead.[3]My clerk could not locate the Claimant’s further correspondence or medical evidence on the Tribunal’s electronic case management system or within our email inbox. Indeed we had to request copies which were forwarded by the respondent’s solicitors.[4]From this I can see that the Claimant sent an email to this office copied to the Respondent on 27 June 2025 which included screenshots of a letter from Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust dated 12 June 2025 relating to a pre-operative assessment appointment for cataract removal on 21 July 2025 and an automated telephone assessment to be conducted at 9 am on third of July 2025. For some reason we do not have this email with(in) our system.[5]The claimant’s position within his email is that he is unable to attend the hearing as a result of the impending operation, the pre-operative assessment and telephone assessment.[6]In his email from this morning he further states that he requires a postal hearing because of the need not to travel or undertake electronic correspondence to protect his eyesight before surgery.[7]In its email also sent on 27 July 2025 , which also for some reason is not on our system, the respondent objects to the request to postpone the hearing and sets out its reasons why.[8]Having considered the correspondence before me and the medical documentation, the claimant’s request is refused.[9]The appointment is for a pre-operative assessment on 21 July. There is no date set for the actual operation.[10]The automated telephone assessment is at 9 am on 3 July 2025 and there is no reason why the hearing cannot go ahead today or indeed tomorrow, possibly with a slightly later start if the telephone assessment takes longer than one hour.[11]In any event the claimant has known about this from 12 June and yet has only raised it on 27 June and indeed it (has) only come to my attention today after the hearing was supposed to start.[12]In addition the letter does state that the claimant can phone for his automated assessment telephone assessment line at any time from 48 hours before his scheduled call. This means that the claimant could have done this either 1 July or today before the hearing started.[13]The claimant has not provided any medical evidence to support his requirement for a postal hearing or the need not to travel or undertake electronic correspondence. In any event this hearing is taking place by CVP and so there is no requirement for him to travel.[14]The hearing will proceed at 11.30 am. The claimant is required to attend. If he does not do so, the hearing will continue in his absence at which either I will hear the case or alternatively dismiss his claim.”11. I commenced the hearing at 11.34 am, by which time the claimant was not present in the CVP room and was not represented. In addition, he had not Page 3 of 4 responded either by telephone or email.12. At the start of the hearing, I advised Mr Hurd of the position and advised him that subsequent to drafting the above letter I realised that by 10 am today, the claimant would already have had his 9 am automated telephone assessment.13. Under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedural Rules 2024, 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. 14. In the circumstances I decided that it was not practicable or proportionate to continue with the hearing in the claimant’s absence and the information which was available to me, after making practicable enquiries, indicated that the claimant had unilaterally absented himself from the hearing, and having considered his renewed request for a stay of proceedings I concluded that he had not presented acceptable reasons or supporting evidence for his absence.[15]The claim is therefore dismissed.