No attendance v Respondent — 2024

The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal and a claim for 'other payments'. He did not attend the hearing on 16 August 2024 and told the Tribunal clerk that he had forgotten about it and was seeking a postponement. The Tribunal refused the postponement under Rule 30A, noting that the parties had been notified by notice dated 18 March 2024, that the claimant had also been reminded on 8 July 2024, and that no exceptional circumstances had been shown.

The claim had been insufficiently particularised from the start. The respondent had asked for further information about the unfair dismissal and other payments complaints, and Employment Judge Broughton had ordered the claimant to provide that information by 11 and 18 January 2024. The claimant did not comply. The Tribunal recorded repeated chasing correspondence, the claimant's statement in February 2024 that he would attempt to resolve matters, and the later clarification that the GMB was not representing him in these proceedings.

Applying Rule 37, and referring to Smith v Tesco Stores Limited 2023 EAT 11 and Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant Scotland Limited 2022 327, the Tribunal held that the claimant had failed to comply with the order, had not actively pursued the claim, and had acted unreasonably. It found that the respondent still did not know the case it had to meet, that a fair trial was not possible, and that no lesser sanction was proportionate, so the claim was struck out.

On costs, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant's non-attendance and failure to clarify his claim caused the respondent to incur unnecessary expense in attending the hearing. Applying Rules 75, 76 and 78, and referring to Barnsley MBC v Yerrakalva 2012 ICR 420, it ordered the claimant to pay the respondent's costs of attendance, assessed at £900.