no appearance For v Respondent — 2018

Mr G Alex was employed by Clipfine Limited from 3 September 2012, described in the judgment as a traffic marshall, although the respondent said he was employed as a general operative. He resigned on 17 December 2018 and presented a tribunal claim on 21 December 2018 alleging constructive dismissal and that he had not received written employment particulars. His solicitors ceased acting on 19 June 2019, a schedule of loss was provided but no other documents or witness statements were exchanged, and there was no effective contact from the claimant thereafter. The tribunal recorded that an email notice of hearing bounced back and that notice was then sent to the postal address supplied by the claimant's former solicitors.

On the respondent's strike-out application, the tribunal held that the constructive dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The resignation letter alleged that the respondent had prevented the claimant from working from 25 October 2018, sent him home without reasons, and moved him between locations without reasons, but the tribunal found that those assertions were contradicted by an email from the main contractors on 25 October 2018 and by the minutes of the meeting held the following day, which the claimant signed and which showed that he had been given an explanation of the respondent's position and the importance of wearing safety gear. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been absent without leave from 29 October 2018 and unpaid from that time.

The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 on four grounds: no reasonable prospect of success, unreasonable conduct of the proceedings, non-compliance with the tribunal's case management orders made on 18 February 2019, and failure to actively pursue the claim. It said the claimant's silence and non-attendance were unreasonable and that the case management orders had been breached in a serious respect. It also stated that, even if the claim had not been struck out, it would have been dismissed under Rule 47 because of the claimant's absence. No monetary remedy was awarded.