Mr N S P Anaya v HCA Healthcare UK: 6008892/2025
JUDGMENT
The claim is dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.REASONS
[1]A Notice of Hearing for a preliminary hearing by video for case management today was sent to the parties on 31 March 2025. In the usual way, this required each party to complete an agenda and return this to the Tribunal seven days before the hearing. The Respondent complied with this requirement. The Claimant did not. The Tribunal has received no communication from the Claimant since the presentation of the claim.[2]The Respondent’s solicitors sent a draft list of issues to the Claimant in advance of the preliminary hearing. The Claimant replied by email dated 5 August 2025 as follows: “I’m sorry, but as you can understand, I don’t have time because I have a lot of jobs because of the rent, I don’t wait for my children’s food, I don’t wait, keep in mind that they threw me out without any investigation or even for me to defend myself. I’ll leave that to you. Yes, for demanding what’s fair I’m going to prison. I’m going to prison.” Case Number: 6008892/2025[3]The joining instructions for the hearing asked the parties to attend by 9.40 am. By 10.00 am the Claimant had not joined. The Tribunal’s clerk telephoned the Claimant and left a voicemail message, and re-sent the joining instructions. By 10.20 am there had been no response from the Claimant.[4]Rule 47 of the Procedure Rules provides, in relation to all types of hearings that: If a party fails to attend or 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.[5]I concluded that the Claimant’s failure to communicate with the Tribunal, his failure to attend the preliminary hearing, and the content of his email to the Respondent’s solicitors, were all indicative of his having no intention of pursuing the claim. In the circumstances, I decided that there would be no purpose in proceeding with the hearing in the Claimant’s absence, or in postponing and re-listing the hearing, and that I should instead dismiss the claim.