Mrs M-A St Joseph v Citizens Advice Gateshead: 6009657/2025
JUDGMENT
The claimant did not attend today’s hearing. All claims are dismissed under rule 47. Approved by:REASONS
[1]The claimant has made a request for the written reasons for why I dismissed the claimant’s claim at the final hearing on 9 January 2026, because claimant did not attend the hearing.[2]Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of procedure 2024 provides as follows: 47. Non-attendance 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.[3]The claimant did not attend the hearing on 9 January 2026.[4]The tribunal made attempts to contact the claimant by telephoning her on the number she had provided in her ET1, on the morning of the hearing. The claimant did not answer the call made by the tribunal.[5]The tribunal also sent the claimant an email asking her to join the hearing. Case Number: 6009657/2025 v3 10.2.25 2[6]The tribunal made enquiries of the respondent about the most recent contact they had had with the claimant and her whereabouts generally. The respondent told the tribunal that the last time they had heard from the claimant was on 11 November 2025 and they have not heard from the claimant since then.[7]The tribunal considered that the claimant had been given sufficient notice of the final hearing as it was provided in the case management order sent to the parties on 7 October 2025.[8]The claimant had provided no reason why she could not attend the final hearing on 9 January 2026.[9]The claim was one of wrongful dismissal and the burden of proof was on the claimant to establish her claim.[10]I decided to dismiss the claim. Before doing so, I considered all the information available to the tribunal, after the enquiries made, about the reason for the claimant’s absence. There was no good reason for the claimant’s absence. The burden of proof rested with the claimant to establish she had been wrongfully dismissed, and she was not present to present her case. Dismissal of the claimant’s case was therefore, in my judgment, the appropriate course of action. Approved by: