did not appear and was not represented For v Respondent — 2019

The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 24 July 2019 and was not represented. The tribunal proceeded in her absence after earlier case management steps had provided information about videoconferencing, following the claimant's stated difficulty attending in person because of agoraphobia. The claimant had emailed the tribunal on 20 June 2019 referring to agoraphobia and requesting participation by video, and the tribunal noted a GP letter dated 5 June 2019 saying a video link would be beneficial. However, she did not follow up with the named administrative officer to arrange a test call or conferencing and did not appear at the hearing.

On the morning of the hearing the claimant emailed seeking a stay because of alleged High Court proceedings, discontinuance under Rule 52, and strike-out of the respondent's ET3 for dishonesty. The judge rejected each application. He found there was no evidence that any High Court proceedings had actually been issued or served, so there was no basis for a stay. He also refused discontinuance on the terms sought, and rejected the request to strike out the response because allegations of dishonesty would require a trial, which would not take place if the response were struck out.

The respondent then sought strike-out under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The judge recorded missed deadlines for a statement of remedies, an index to the discrimination claim, drafts of amended claims for automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment, a completed schedule of claims, and a schedule of remedies, together with the failure to provide medical evidence for any reasonable-adjustment application. He found the claimant's non-compliance was wilful, deliberate and contumelious, and that it prevented the respondent from amending its response and preparing a draft list of issues. Applying the authorities cited, including Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, De Keyser v Wilson, Arrow Nominees v Blackledge, Logicrose, and the Meek test, the tribunal concluded that a fair trial was no longer possible and struck out the claims.