Mrs Melissa Davies v A Suman & Co Ltd — 2021

The claimant, Mrs Melissa Davies, had worked for A Suman & Co Ltd for a short period in October 2020 and presented her claim in January 2021. At a preliminary hearing before EJ Cookson, the tribunal had ordered her to explain the basis on which she could bring unfair dismissal despite less than two years' service, to identify any amendments, to provide a schedule of loss, and to supply material relating to the alleged disability, including medical records and other evidence. She did not comply with those orders. She sent two emails in October 2021 saying that personal issues meant she was not in a position to follow the orders, but she gave no detailed explanation and did not engage further with the tribunal or the respondent.

For the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal recorded that the claimant had made no attempt to comply with the unless order and had put forward no basis on which the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim despite the statutory two-year qualifying period in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The reasons describe the complaint as struck out by reason of the claimant's failure to comply with the unless order, and the operative judgment also states that the complaint stands dismissed.

The disability discrimination claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing. The judge said dismissal was proportionate because the non-compliance had been extensive, the claim had not been advanced, the claimant had not sought an extension or postponement, and no excuse or explanation had been given for her non-attendance. The tribunal noted that there was no medical evidence or claimant evidence supporting the asserted disability, so the claimant would have failed to discharge the burden of proof in any event.

The judge also considered alternatives, including proceeding in the claimant's absence, adjourning, or relisting the disability issue, but rejected them. He said that if dismissal had not been available, he would have struck the disability claim out under rules 37(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance and for not actively pursuing the case.