Mr H Almajdub v National Westminster Bank plc: 8002040/2025
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that the claim has not been actively pursued in terms of rule 38(1)(d)REASONS
[1]On This case was scheduled to proceed to a Case Management Preliminary Hearing on 21 November 2025. That hearing was scheduled to be held remotely, via video link. The claimant did not attend the arranged Case Management Preliminary Hearing on 21 November 2025. He did not seek postponement of that hearing or inform of any reason why he could not attend. He has not submitted his completed Agenda form. The respondent’s representative was present at that scheduled hearing.[2]A Tribunal clerk tried to contact the claimant by telephone and left a message on his mobile phone voicemail.[3]In circumstances where the claimant did not attend the scheduled hearing, and where there is a lack of specification of his complaints, Employment Judge McManus considered that it was not in accordance with the overriding objective of the Employment Tribunal (Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (‘the Tribunal Rules’), for there to be substantive discussion on the claim in the claimant’s absence.[4]On 27 November 2025 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to give written reasons by 04 December 2025 or to request a hearing in order to consider why the claim should not be struck out.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made or to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore strikes out the claim.