v Respondent Ms K Murfin Costa Limited Heard: Birmingham via CVP v Miss. S. Bogues — 2021

The claimant presented a claim form dated 18 April 2020 alleging unfair dismissal and/or automatically unfair dismissal. Her account was that she had been employed by Costa Ltd as a barista, that the manager gave her shifts that were difficult to work around caring responsibilities, and that after a bereavement she was given no further shifts and asked to return the store keys. The respondent disputed dismissal and said the claimant resigned after a dispute with a colleague; it also said she had insufficient service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.

The claimant did not attend the hearing on 1 October 2021. The tribunal proceeded in her absence under Rule 47, noting that the hearing had been listed since February 2021, that the claimant had been told the purpose of the hearing, that clarification of the claims had been outstanding since June 2020, and that she had received the bundle and the respondent's skeleton argument. The tribunal also recorded earlier directions requiring her to provide further particulars of any proposed amendment, including a discrimination-by-association case and wrongful dismissal, but she did not provide the requested detail.

Applying Rule 37, the tribunal struck out the claim. It found that the claimant had intentionally failed to engage with the process and had failed to comply with the orders of 4 February 2021 and 25 March 2021, so the claim had not been actively pursued. In the alternative, it held that the pleaded unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had inadequate service for ordinary unfair dismissal and had not particularised any automatic unfair dismissal or discrimination claim. The tribunal therefore did not need to consider the respondent's application for a deposit order.