No attendance For the v Ms Pettinger (solicitor), with the first respondent — 2022

On 2 August 2022, at Leeds by telephone, Employment Judge JM Wade dismissed the combined proceedings under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend or have representation at the preliminary hearing. The case had been brought in two claim forms presented on 2 April 2022 and 12 April 2022, and had been combined by order. The respondents were Ms D Commander, Mr D Maybury and Building Product Solutions Limited.

The first claim form was read as alleging unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal/notice pay and disability discrimination. The second claim form alleged disability discrimination only. The judge recorded that the claimant had said he had started new employment within three weeks of the end of his employment, and that the factual complaints included a grievance about the second respondent, a request for an occupational health assessment, and allegations of bullying and threatening calls.

In explaining what would have happened if the claimant had attended, the judge said any unfair dismissal claim would have had no prospect because the claimant had less than two years' service and had sued individuals who were not the employer. The notice pay point would also have needed leave to identify the company as the correct employer. The judge further said the request to attend occupational health was not an arguable last straw and that there was a good reason for the employer to seek assessment, because disabled employees may be entitled to reasonable adjustments.

On disability discrimination, the judge said the allegations were unclear and that further medical information would have been needed. He noted that both claim forms had been ticked to say the claimant did not have a disability, although he referred to mental health as the disability relied on. The judge considered there was little reasonable prospect of proving that the claimant was disabled or that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known of any disability, and indicated that a deposit order would likely have been granted if the claimant had attended. The judgment also said any application for reconsideration would need to explain the failure to attend and set out the conduct said to have caused resignation and the basis of the disability discrimination case.