No appearance and not represented For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant brought claims for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 and whistleblowing detriment. The final hearing took place on 21 November 2022 by CVP at London Central. The claimant did not attend, had not contacted the tribunal in advance, and did not respond to attempts to reach him by telephone and email. After waiting until midday, the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the 2013 Rules.

On the respondents' costs application, the tribunal found that the claimant had acted vexatiously and otherwise unreasonably, had failed to comply with tribunal orders, and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It relied in part on journal entries disclosed by the claimant, which the tribunal read as showing that he did not seriously wish to pursue the whistleblowing allegations and that he was seeking substantial compensation, including to fund his career.

The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been removed from a project on 15 September 2021 because of performance concerns, that performance issues continued through September and October 2021, and that his employment was terminated on 16 November 2021 for performance reasons. It concluded there was no reasonable prospect of showing that the dismissal was because of protected disclosures, and no real prospect of the claimant discharging the prima facie burden for the whistleblowing detriment claim. Taking the whole picture into account, and with no reliable evidence of means before it, the tribunal provisionally assessed the respondents' costs at £20,000 inclusive of VAT and disbursements, including £3,500 counsel's fees and £233.30 printing costs, with the balance made up by solicitors' costs, and gave the claimant until 9 December 2022 to file submissions or evidence before that assessment became final.