Employment Judge AndersonNot represented for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 13 January 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]Due to the non attendance of the Claimant, all claims are dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
REASONS
[1]This matter came before me today for the purposes of a Preliminary Hearing for case management purposes.[2]Neither party attended. No ET 3 has been submitted in this matter and the Respondent is debarred.[3]As per Cooke v Glenrose Fish Company Limited [2004] ICR 1188 I considered it appropriate to try and make contact with the Claimant. At my direction, my clerk telephoned the Claimant. I am told that the Claimant answered the telephone. My clerk explained that she was calling from Manchester Employment Tribunal, that there was a hearing today and asked the Claimant whether he was attending. I am told that the response was ‘no’. I am told that the question was repeated and the answer remained the same.[4]Rule 47 requires that I consider the information before me regarding the Claimant’s non attendance. In terms of what I have before me, I have an ET 1 form, which ticks the box for whistleblowing but does not provide basic particulars. I infer from the brief information in the ET 1 that this may actually be a claim for unpaid wages. I do not have any other documents on file indicating the Claimant’s engagement or preparation or participation.[5]I am aware that this hearing was for case management purposes. Rule 47 is not restricted to final hearings.[6]I am also aware that there is no strict obligation to attend a Tribunal hearing. However, I cannot make any progress in this matter in the absence of the Claimant.[7]I considered alternatives. I did not consider dealing with matters in writing to be realistic. What is needed here is a hearing. That cannot take place without the participation of the Claimant.[8]I considered postponement of my own volition. However, I considered that given the Claimant’s stated intention not to attend, the lack of information before me and the lack of other preparation for today, I was more likely than not to simply cause a repeat of today, having then expended further Tribunal resource to achieve that.[9]Tribunal resources are under significant pressure. The public in the form of the taxpayer funds the Tribunal. Part of the credibility of the Tribunal system depends upon the resources of the Tribunal being allocated to cases appropriately.[10]This situation is distinct from the facts in Ahmed v DWP [2025] EAT 170. That occurred part way through a hearing and there was a route through which (an attended hearing) the hearing could continue. In this case, the alternative is postponement or sending correspondence, neither of which are likely to alter the situation on current information.[11]If the Claimant disagrees with the above, then it is open to him to apply for reconsideration of this judgment. Any such application for reconsideration must be made within 14 days of the date on which this Judgment was sent. It should address the Claimant’s non attendance and should address what is being claimed.[12]I am not encouraging or discouraging an application for reconsideration. I am simply signposting to the Claimant the existence of the route of reconsideration.