Mr B Lund v Clean Event Services Ltd: 6042181/2025
JUDGMENT
The Claim is dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground of the Claimant not having attended the hearing.REASONS
[1]This case was listed for a short track final hearing to determine the Claimant’s complaint alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed in breach of his contractual entitlement to notice by which he was seeking an award in respect of his notice pay.[2]The Claimant failed to attend the hearing.[3]Rule 47 of the Employment Procedure Rules 2024 (the “ET Rules”) is in the terms set out below. “If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim…. Before doing so, it shall consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence”. - 1 -[4]The power in rule 47 of the ET Rules must be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 3 of the ET Rules. The overriding objective is to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes avoiding delay, saving expense and acting proportionately.[5]This is a case where the Claimant gives the dates of his employment as a waste operative as 1 November 2013 to 1 October 2025. Early conciliation commenced through ACAS being notified of the prospective Claim on 25 October 2025. ACAS issued the early conciliation certificate on 3 November 2025. The ET1 Form of Claim was received by the Tribunal on 15 November 2025. At section 8.1 of the ET1 Form of Claim, the Claimant ticked the applicable boxes to indicate that he was bringing a complaint that he was owed his notice pay. A postal address was given for the Claimant as well as an email address and a mobile telephone number.[6]The Notice of Hearing for the hearing on 29 June 2026 had accordingly been sent to the postal address given for the Claimant on 26 January 2026.[7]An ET3 Form of Response was filed on behalf of the Respondent which asserted that the Respondent had been contractually entitled to terminate the contract of employment without notice on the basis of the findings made in the course of disciplinary proceedings concerning the Claimant’s conduct.[8]In preparation for the hearing, the Respondent had prepared a bundle of relevant documents and a Statement of Evidence from Matthew Inskip, the Regional Manager who had made the dismissal decision.[9]It is to be noted that this documentation was uploaded by the Respondent to the Tribunal's Document Upload Centre on 24 June 2026. This was confirmed in an e-mail sent to the Tribunal from the Respondent’s representative on 24 June 2026, which was also copied to the Claimant’s e-mail address and referred to providing “confirmation that the bundles for the hearing in the above matter on Monday 29th June 2026 have successfully been uploaded to the DUC”. The e-mail provided contact details for the Respondent’s representative, including a telephone number.[10]On the face of it, the notice of hearing in this case has been sent to the address for service provided by the Claimant and the Claimant has been sent recent communication from the Respondent’s representative referring to the hearing date.[11]As a result of the Claimant’s non-attendance on 29 June 2026, the start of the hearing was delayed in order for the clerk to the Tribunal to seek to make contact with the Claimant, using the telephone contact details provided on his ET1 Form of Claim so as to ascertain if he was intending to attend the hearing. - 2 - I was informed by the clerk that there had been no answer to the calls made by the Tribunal.[12]In the circumstances, the preliminary hearing commenced in the absence of the Claimant, and I gave consideration as to the options open to the Tribunal, which included proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Claimant, or adjourning the case, or dismissing it because of his non-attendance. Having regard to the information set out above, and taking account of the overriding objective, I decided that the appropriate course of action was to dismiss the Claim due to the Claimant’s non-attendance. The alternative course of adjourning the case was likely to involve significant further delay and the utilisation of further Tribunal resources in a case where it was not clear that the Claimant was still actively pursuing the matter. Approved by Employment Judge Kenward Dated 29 June 2026 17 August 2026 Notes Judgments and reasons for the Judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-Tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the Claimant(s) and Respondent(s) in a case. 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/guidanceand-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/ - 3 -