R Jordan v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council: 6020003/2024
JUDGMENT
The claim is dismissed under Rule 47.REASONS
[1]The hearing was due to start at 2pm. A Notice of Preliminary Hearing had been sent to both parties on 27 May 2025. Details of how to connect to the CVP hearing were sent on 13 October 2025.[2]There was no contact from either party. The clerk emailed the parties three times. The clerk rang the respondent and was told that their legal representative was on leave. The clerk also rang the claimant twice. On the first occasion, there was no answer. On the second occasion the clerk said that she was ringing from the Tribunal, and was told that the person who had answered was not Mr Jordan. At 14:24 I dismissed the claim under rule 47.Law
[3]Rule 47 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.” Decision and Reasons[4]The Claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented at it. The clerk made reasonable enquiries, attempting to contact the Claimant by phone and email. No information is available about why he has not attended.[5]The Respondent has not attended. This appears to be due to the fact that their legal representative is on leave and has not arranged for the hearing to be covered in their absence.[6]The Claimant having not attended, and enquiries having been made of him by phone and email, I struck out the claim under rule 47. Approved by: