Not present (see below) and not represented For the v Respondent — 2024

The final hearing was listed for 29 and 30 January 2024, but the claimant did not attend because she collapsed in the waiting room on 26 January and was taken to hospital. Her representative, Ms Parker, also did not attend in person. The respondent applied to strike out the claim, and the tribunal had previously warned the claimant on more than one occasion that failure to secure effective representation and engage with the proceedings could result in strike out.

The tribunal reviewed the history of repeated delays and adjournments, including postponement of the March 2023 hearing because the claimant was severely disabled, had only recently received the bundle and witness statements, and did not then have representation. It also noted that the claimant had not answered written cross-examination questions served in June 2023, and that at a September 2023 preliminary hearing Employment Judge Wade had made Unless Orders and warned that strike out was very much in the balance. The claimant's representative later asked for the hearing to be postponed until criminal proceedings had concluded, but the tribunal held that this was not a good reason to postpone the final hearing.

Applying Rule 37(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the overriding objective, and relying on Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, Smith v Tesco Stores Limited, Arrow Nominees Inc v Blackledge and Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd, the tribunal concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible. It took into account the effect of delay on witnesses, the extra time and cost already incurred, the finite resources of the tribunal, and the absence of any assurance that a further hearing would be effective. The result was that the claimant's claims were struck out and no merits findings or remedy award were made.