No attendance For the v Mr Lunat (solicitor) Interpreter: Ms Mir (not sworn) — 2021

The judgment concerned the claimant's remaining unlawful deduction from wages claim. The tribunal noted that an earlier unfair dismissal complaint had already been dismissed at an April 2021 hearing, and the present hearing was listed to determine the wages issue.

The respondent's application to strike out the claim for no reasonable prospects of success was refused. The tribunal said the central issue was whether the wages shown as paid in cash on the payslips had in fact been paid, and that this could not fairly be decided without hearing sworn evidence and assessing reliability. The tribunal also observed that, for a litigant in person using an interpreter, a fair hearing could have taken place if the claimant had attended.

The claimant's postponement request was refused. The tribunal said the application had been made at the last possible moment, that self-isolation did not itself prevent attendance by CVP, and that the difficulties described were really difficulties in liaison between the claimant and his cousin. It also said the late request caused inconvenience and cost to the respondent and the public purse.

The claim was then dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend or be represented. The tribunal said it was not in the interests of justice to proceed on the merits in the claimant's absence. It also noted, as an additional reason, that the claim appeared to face time limit difficulty because it had not been presented within the ACAS extension period and the stop-the-clock provisions did not bridge the gap to 17 December 2020.