Miss G Palfrey and v Drop Music Digital Limited — 2022

Following a preliminary hearing, the tribunal had identified claims of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996, disability discrimination, detriment due to public interest disclosure, and breach of contract relating to an alleged agreed pay rise. On 13 January 2022 the claimant sought a further adjournment, saying she was unwell with back pain and producing a fit note and other medical material, but the application was refused because the tribunal considered the medical evidence insufficient for a remote hearing and noted that the claimant would not need to leave home.

The claimant did not attend the hearing despite telephone calls and an email from the tribunal giving the hearing link and later delaying the start time. The tribunal held that it could not progress the case or clarify the issues without the claimant’s input and dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.

After dismissal, the respondent sought costs for its brief fee. The tribunal accepted that the late adjournment application, the absence of adequate medical evidence, and the failure to attend meant the respondent had incurred avoidable expense, and ordered the claimant to pay £900 including VAT. In doing so, the tribunal referred to rules 75, 76, 78 and 84, and cited Lodwick, Davidson and Yerrakalva on the approach to costs.