S Waugh v Glasgow City Council: 8001677/2025
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that the claim is dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024 for failure to attend or be represented at the final hearing.REASONS
[1]The claimant had presented various complaints including for disability discrimination. A case management preliminary hearing had been listed for today. The claimant did not attend. The respondent had professional representation. Non-attendance of a party[2]The respondent made an application for the case to be dismissed due to the non-attendance of the claimant under Rule 47 if the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.[3]In determining the application for dismissal the following is noted:[4]A Preliminary Hearing for case management was fixed to take place by cloud video platform on Thursday 2 October 2025. The claimant did not join the hearing and did not contact the tribunal to explain. On 3 October a strike out warning was issued to the claimant. On 9 October the claimant apologised for not joining the hearing due to ongoing issues with her phone and internet, sought an alternative hearing date and undertook to set up alternative options as back-up for the hearing. On 24 October it was determined that the case will proceed to a further Case Management Preliminary Hearing(CMPH) which the Claimant will be expected to attend and participate in and if the Claimant has further technical difficulties on a Hearing Day she must contact the Tribunal immediately to confirm the nature of the problem[5]A notice of today’s final hearing was issued to parties on 26 November 2025. On 2 December the claimant replied to this email advising a change of email address.[6]The claimant failed to join today’s hearing and failed to contact the tribunal despite the prior direct to do so. The clerk attempted to contact the claimant by phone and by email without success.[7]The claim contains a very brief narrative and it is not reasonably practicable to infer the specific complaints being brought. The claimant was previously required to complete an Agenda providing further particulars of her complaints and failed to do so. That request was repeated by the respondent. It was not therefore possible to progress the hearing in her absence.[8]In the circumstances it was considered to be in furtherance of the overriding objective for the claim to be dismissed under Rule 47.[9]It is open to the claimant to make an application seeking reconsideration of this dismissal judgment. Any such application should be made within 14 days setting out why it is necessary in the interests of justice and should include an explanation as to why she failed to attend the hearing, why she failed to seek a postponement if she was unfit to attend, why she had not set up alternative options as previously undertaken by her if she continued to have problems with her phone and/or internet.