Mr D Redmond v Selfridges Retail Limited — 2025

The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing but told the tribunal clerk that he was content for the hearing to proceed in his absence. The tribunal proceeded, noting that the hearing had been converted to a remote hearing at the claimant's request and that he had sufficient notice to arrange access to the CVP room.

The tribunal found that the claimant had previously brought substantially the same claims against the respondent, that those claims had been withdrawn and dismissed, and that the tribunal had already confirmed they could not be revived. It also found that the current claims were significantly out of time, that no explanation had been provided for the delay, and that the claimant's written representations did not address the jurisdictional issues identified in the Rule 28 notice.

The tribunal further recorded that the respondent had no record of employing the claimant, that the claimant had not provided evidence to substantiate employment, and that even on the claimant's own information he lacked sufficient service for an unfair dismissal claim. The claims were dismissed under Rule 28 and, in the alternative, struck out under Rule 38.