Mr L Rebouh v Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd and others: 6014292/2025 and others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6014292/2025
Between
Mr L RebouhClaimantWarner Bros. Entertainment UK Limited (1) Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (2) Virgin Active Limited (3)Respondent
Before
Employment Judge EmeryNot represented for claimantDate 17 October 2025
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: All claims against all respondents are dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
REASONS
[1]This hearing was listed with all three respondents to consider the following issues, in summary):a. To clarify the claims;b. To consider whether to strike out some of the claims because the employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear them, and it is fair and just to do so;c. To consider whether to make a deposit order against any of the claims or arguments on the basis they stand little reasonable prospects of success, and it is fair and just to do so;d. Further case management if appropriate.[2]The hearing was listed to take place by cvp in a notice of hearing sent to the parties by post on 18 June 2025.[3]On 3 October 2025, the claimant sent to the tribunal evidence of his income for the purposes of the deposit application, saying in his covering email, “I refer to the directions for the Preliminary Hearing on 17 October 2025”. It is therefore clear that the claimant was aware that the hearing was taking place today.[4]I note that the claimant was clearly participating in the process, at least until 3 October 2025. He complied with the Order sent with the 18 June Notice of Hearing. Ms Bann says that until recently the claimant was engaging with the preparation of the hearing bundle.[5]The claimant did not turn up at the hearing. The hearing clerk phoned the claimant; his phone went to voicemail. We checked whether the claimant had come to the hearing centre by mistake, he was not in the building. We also checked the Tribunal inboxes to ensure the claimant had not emailed reasons for his absence.[6]It was the first and third respondent’s position that the claimant has failed to attend, the Tribunal has made enquires that are practicable about the reason for the claimant's absence. It is apparent that in the absence of any contact with the tribunal that the claimant has decided not to turn up, most likely given the applications he is facing. Their position is that I should exercise my discretion under Rule 47 to dismiss his claim.[7]This was the second respondent’s secondary position. Their primary argument was that I could proceed with the hearing in the absence of the claimant and strikeout his claims against RBKC on the basis that the employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claims he is making. The second respondent is a public body, there are costs implications, and it would achieve finality to have all claims struck out on their merits.
The Law
[8]The Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 – Rule 47: Non-attendance 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.[9]Roberts v Skelmersdale College [2003] EWCA Civ 954: The Court of Appeal stated that the tribunal has a wide discretion to dismiss a claim in the absence of a party, provided that it exercises its discretion properly and fairly. The Tribunal is under no obligation to investigate the merits, or lack of merits, of the claim before doing so.[10]Cooke v Glenrose Fish Co Ltd [2004] IRLR 866, EAT: The EAT stated that the tribunal should seek to contact the claimant to find out why they have not attended – this is “the best approach”, and should also ask the parties whether the claimant has given a reason for non-attendance. Conclusions on the evidence and the law[11]The claimant is clearly aware of today’s hearing and the applications he is facing – to strike out because the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear these claims or for a deposit to be ordered. He has made no contact with the tribunal or the parties to say he could not attend, and he did not respond to the tribunal’s attempts to contact him.[12]It is possible that the claimant has a reason for his non-attendance, and his failure to inform the parties and the tribunal of his non-attendance, for example a medical emergency. If so, this may be a good reason for his failure to attend and to communicate his non-attendance. If so, he may apply for a review of this decision within the appropriate timescale and with relevant evidence (medical, or other) in support of his application.[13]But in the absence of any evidence of a good reason, and because the claimant has failed to respond to the Tribunal’s attempts to contact him, I consider that it is appropriate, in exercising my discretion, to strike out the claims against all respondents. Approved by: