T J Parker v 1st Choice Windows NE Ltd (in voluntary liquidation): 6022509/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6022509/2024
Between
T J ParkerClaimant1st Choice Windows NE Ltd (in voluntary liquidation)Respondent
Before
Employment Judge SerrNot represented for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 13 May 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimants claim contained in case number 6022509/2024 is struck out in its entirety under:-1.1 Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because it has no reasonable prospect of success.1.2 Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(b) because the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted has been unreasonable.1.3 Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) because the claimant has not complied with Tribunal orders.1.4 Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it has not been actively pursued.
REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent, as a Director, from 1 June 2020 until 1 December 2022. Early conciliation started on 10 December 2024 and ended on 16 December 2024. The claim form was presented on 19 December 2024. It simply stated “redundancy holiday pay amount requested £1700”. There was also an unspecified claim for notice pay.[2]The claim therefore is about redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay. The respondent did not provided a defence.[3]On 7 March 2025 Judge Sweeney wrote to the claimant, seemingly at her home address, with requests for basic information to assist in calculating the outstanding sums claimed. This letter was not replied to.[4]The claims were listed for a full merits hearing on 17 March 2025. The claimant failed to attend the hearing before Judge Heather. The claimant was telephoned and said she was unaware of the hearing. Judge Heather directed that the full merits hearing be postponed and provided directions leading to today’s hearing (see paragraph 8 -10 of the Case Management Orders which included the same information requested by Judge Sweeney). The claimant’s new contact details were recorded on the Tribunal’s case management system.[5]On the face of it all claims are considerably outside the statutory time limit for presentation provided by the Employment Rights Act 1996, Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and the Working Time Regulations 1998. Judge Heather therefore required the claimant to provide a witness statement addressing the issue of time limits.[6]The claimant failed to provide any of the information required in Judge Heather’s order. The claimant did not attend today’s hearing despite receiving notification of it on 15 April 2025. She was contacted by the Tribunal Clerk today by phone and told her that she was unable to complete the “paperwork” due to mental health problems. This had never been previously intimated to the Tribunal. The information sought in the order is straightforward and the claimant, who was a director, should have been able to obtain it with little difficulty.[7]The Tribunal took the view that the claimants claim should be struck out under Rule 38. It took into account the overriding objective and the case law as comprehensively set out in Leeks v UCU NHS Foundation Trust (2024) IRLR 866 paragraphs 19-29. The claimants claims were brought two years after her dismissal with no explanation for that delay. The claimant has failed to engage with any orders of the Tribunal. She has not provided the information requested and her non engagement has now caused two trials to be ineffective. The Tribunal has no confidence that even if the matter were relisted the claimant would engage, provide the information and attend.[8]Accordingly for these reasons it is proportionate to strike out the claims.