did not attend For the v Mr E Nuttman, Solicitor (Ward Hathaway) — 2019

The tribunal dismissed Miss P. Lawrence-Mathison's claims under rule 37(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because they were not actively pursued. The case had been listed for a preliminary hearing on 30 January 2020 after an earlier hearing on 18 December 2019 was adjourned when the claimant said she was at hospital. Employment Judge Joffe had ordered her to provide medical evidence by 15 January and to say whether she wanted to withdraw the claim or, if she wished to pursue it, whether the medical condition affected attendance at the final hearing.

The claimant did not attend again on 30 January 2020, did not comply with the order, and did not respond to the respondent's submissions or reminder. She wrote on 28 January saying she had gastroenteritis and could not afford a GP letter costing over £100. The tribunal said she could have obtained a discharge summary without charge and could have told the tribunal earlier if cost was preventing compliance. It concluded that the claims were not being actively pursued and that an unless order would not solve the lack of progress.

In outline, the tribunal noted that the effective date of termination was 1 March 2019 and that the claim was presented on 8 July 2019 after ACAS early conciliation. It said the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims appeared out of time on the basis that it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time had not been shown, and that the Equality Act claims could not be extended on a just and equitable basis on the information available. It also observed that any possible victimisation argument had little reasonable prospect of success, and it vacated the four-day final hearing listed for April 2020.