Ms M Arif v Lloyds Bank plc — 2022

The Tribunal substituted Lloyds Bank Plc as the respondent in place of Lloyds Banking Group Plc pursuant to Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.

The claimant did not attend the telephone preliminary hearing on 22 February 2022. The Tribunal Clerk called her, and the claimant said she would not be joining, referring to ACAS discussions and lack of understanding of the process. The respondent's representative said the claimant had been sent the hearing bundle, draft list of issues, and the amended access code, and had not been given reason to believe attendance was unnecessary.

Employment Judge Murphy dismissed the claimant's complaints pursuant to Rule 47 after considering the available information and making practicable enquiries about the claimant's absence. The judge noted that an email sent by the claimant shortly before dismissal said she thought the hearing would not proceed because of an agreement in principle, but found the information available did not show that the Tribunal or the respondent's representative had created that impression, and the claimant had not explained why she did not join after being told the hearing would proceed.