Mr K Thornhill v Ingram Content Group UK Ltd: 6018518/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6018518/2025

Between

Mr K ThornhillClaimant

Ingram Content Group UK LimitedRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Tynan

Not represented for claimant

Mr G Graham (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 10 April 2026

JUDGMENT

The claim is dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

REASONS

[1]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Production Team Lead. He commenced employment on 18 August 2021 and was dismissed on 13 January 2025 on grounds of alleged incapability (long term sickness). Following acas early conciliation the Claimant presented a claim to the employment tribunals on 18 May 2025. He claims that he was unfairly dismissed, discriminated against on the grounds of disability and that he is owed arrears of pay and other payments.

[2]The claim is resisted by the Respondent. In its Grounds of Resistance, it notes that the Claimant had three extended periods of absence, namely from 29 June to 17 October 2023, 7 February to 15 April 2024, and 8 May 2024 to 13 January 2025 when he was dismissed. The Claimant claims that he remains unfit for work and in this regard has submitted copies of Fit Notes that certify him unfit for work through to 2 February this year. The fact that he has seemingly been unable to work for over a year since the Respondent dismissed him tends to support the Respondent’s decision to dismiss him for long term sickness absence or, if the decision to dismiss was procedurally unfair or tainted by discrimination, would at least be a potentially relevant consideration under the principles in Polkey and 1 of 4 Chagger when assessing whether he would or might have been dismissed in any event (Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd

[1987] UKHL 8

and Chagger v Abbey National plc

[2009] ICR 624

[3]The Grounds of Resistance include a detailed narrative account of the Respondent alleged efforts to engage with the Claimant over an extended period of time, including his alleged failure to attend meetings or even to respond to meeting invitations. The Claimant is also alleged to have failed to attend an Occupational Health assessment arranged by the Respondent.

[4]There has been relatively limited engagement by the Claimant in these proceedings. Standard orders were made for the Claimant to prepare a disability impact statement and to provide copies of his relevant GP and other medical records. He was also ordered to provide particulars of his discrimination complaints as these were entirely lacking in his claim form. The date for compliance was 14 November 2025. He remains in breach of these orders. Ten minutes before today’s hearing was due to commence the Claimant submitted what I consider to be a limited disability impact statement dated today’s date, together with a completed case management agenda form, Fit Note covering the period 27 December 2024 to 27 January 2025, and confirmation of a telephone neurology appointment on 20 April 2026. There is no medical evidence to support his nonattendance today. The disability impact statement is limited in that it focuses somewhat on developments since he left the Respondent’s employment rather than at the date of any alleged acts of discrimination during his employment. It does not, for example, address the effect of any condition of his on normal day to day activities at the relevant time.

[5]The Claimant applied yesterday for today’s hearing to be conducted by telephone. He said that his symptoms are worsened by prolonged screen exposure, which would make it difficult for him to participate effectively in a video hearing. His application was refused by the Regional Employment Judge. However, I left a voice message for the Claimant just after 2pm today informing him that he should join the hearing by video and that I would give consideration to permitting him to turn off his camera so that the hearing would for all intents and purposes meet his request to participate without prolonged screen exposure. The Claimant did not join the hearing. Further calls to the Claimant at approximately 2.20pm and 2.35pm went through to his voicemail. I left a further message for the Claimant on the third call. Given that the Claimant was in contact with the Tribunal by email just 10 minutes before the hearing was due to commence and had specifically requested to participate by telephone, there is no obvious explanation for the Claimant’s failure to answer my calls or respond to my messages, even by email.

[6]On 26 November 2025 the Respondent applied for unless orders in light of the Claimant’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s case management orders. It followed up with a strike out application on 27 January 2026, which was renewed on 3 February 2026. Following correspondence from the Claimant on 2 February 2026 citing health issues, I issued the following direction, which was sent to the parties on 9 March 2026: 2 of 4 “Employment Judge Tynan notes the Claimant's explanation for [his] noncompliance with the Tribunal's orders and the medical evidence provided in that regard. The Claimant must provide an update on [his] medical situation to the Tribunal and the Respondent by 16 March 2026. If [he] has not yet fully complied with paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Tribunal's orders dated 17 October 2025 and believes [he] will be unable to do so by 20 March 2026, the Judge considers that there will be no point the hearing on 10 April 2026 going ahead because of the risk that it will not be effective. However, if that is the case, the Claimant must file a letter from [his] GP which confirms that [he] is presently unable to take steps ordered by the Tribunal and which additionally sets out when, if at all, [he] is likely to be fit enough to participate actively in the proceedings by complying with the Tribunal's orders and attending any Tribunal hearings.” No such letter has been filed.

[7]Notice of today’s hearing was sent to the parties as long ago as 17 October 2025. The Claimant is plainly on notice of the hearing. There is no, or certainly no satisfactory, explanation for his non-attendance. He still has not complied with the Tribunal’s orders to particularise his disability discrimination complaints or provide disclosure of his GP and other medical records. The Fit Notes provided by the Claimant reference severe headaches. A letter from Dr Jacobs, a Consultant Neurologist to the Claimant’s GP dated 20 March 2024 includes a diagnosis of cervicogenic headaches and migraine, resulting from the Claimant’s lifestyle. That seems to be a reference to his participation in rugby and more recently, kick boxing.

[8]Rule 47 of the Rules provides: Non-attendance 47. 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.

[9]It seems to me that the Claimant is not actively pursuing his claim, notwithstanding his belated submission of a limited disability impact statement and accompanying statement that he is actively pursuing his claim. His actions to date do not reflect this. There is little evidence to support his claim that his difficulties in engaging fully have been caused by his health condition.

[10]I shall dismiss the claim under Rule 47 on the basis there is no good reason for the Claimant’s non-attendance today. Had I not dismissed the claim, I would have given consideration to listing the case for strike out under Rule 38. 3 of 4 Approved by: Employment Judge Tynan Date: 10 April 2026 14 May 2026 For the Tribunal: Recording and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislationpractice-directions/