R Pilgrim v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 6021125/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim of unfair dismissal is struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) because the claimant has not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order.[2]The claim of unfair dismissal is struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it has not been actively pursued.REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed as an MGV driver for the respondent, the national mail service, from 29 May 1987 until 29 July 2024. Early conciliation started on 30 September 2024 and ended on 11 November 2024. The claim form was presented to the Tribunal on 6 December 2024.[2]The claimant contends that he was retired on grounds of ill-health without consultation or agreement, and without receiving proper paperwork or details of his lump-sum entitlement. He claims that this amounted to unfair dismissal.[3]The respondent denies that the dismissal was unfair. It maintains that the claimant was dismissed on capability grounds following an occupational health assessment which confirmed he was unfit to return to work in the foreseeable future. A capability meeting was held, alternative roles were considered but not available, and the decision was taken to retire him on ill-health grounds with a lump-sum payment and payment in lieu of notice. The respondent contends it acted reasonably in all the circumstances and relies in the alternative on Polkey.[4]The matter was listed for a final hearing on 9 & 10 September 2025. The claimant did not attend when the case was called. He had not provided a witness statement or any documents in advance of the hearing. Postponement Application[5]At my direction, the clerk telephoned the claimant. He explained that he was attending a hospital appointment, a follow-up to open-heart surgery, and applied for a postponement.[6]Mr Edwards opposed the application. He submitted that the claimant had failed to comply with Tribunal orders throughout the proceedings, had not actively pursued his claim, and that the respondent had incurred costs and inconvenience in attending today’s hearing with a witness, Mr Banger. Procedural History[7]On 5 September 2025 the claimant had applied for a postponement but failed to copy in the respondent, contrary to the Rules. An Employment Judge directed that he resubmit his application urgently, with evidence of his appointment and ensuring service on the respondent. He did not do so.[8]The claimant has also failed to comply with multiple case management orders:a. By 29 April 2025: to serve a schedule of loss – not done.b. By 13 May 2025: to disclose documents – not done.c. By 27 May 2025: to co-operate in agreeing the hearing bundle – not done.d. By 10 June 2025: to serve a witness statement – not done. My decision[9]The Tribunal has discretion whether to postpone a hearing. In deciding whether to do so, it must balance the interests of justice, the reasons advanced by the party seeking an adjournment, the importance of compliance with orders, and the prejudice to the other party.[10]The claimant has persistently failed to comply with orders. He has not provided evidence to support either his previous or his present postponement applications. The respondent has incurred unnecessary costs and inconvenience. To adjourn would not be consistent with the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and promptly.[11]The claimant’s application to postpone is refused.[12]Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the claim is struck out. The claimant has failed to comply with tribunal orders, has not actively pursued the claim, and it is no longer in the interests of justice for the proceedings to continue.[13]For completeness, I note that the claimant also failed to attend the final hearing. The Tribunal would in any event have been entitled to dismiss the claim under Rule 47. Approved by: