Mrs H Sinclair v Amyris Inc — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on 23 January 2024 before Employment Judge Joffe. It followed a case management preliminary hearing on 18 October 2023, which the claimant did not attend. The tribunal had directed the claimant to explain that non-attendance and had given directions so the hearing could identify the issues in the case, decide whether Beauty Labs International Limited should be added as a respondent, and consider whether the claim against Amyris Inc should be struck out if no legal issues were properly identified against it.

Neither party attended the hearing on 23 January 2024. The tribunal recorded that notices of hearing, joining instructions and case management orders had been sent to the claimant at the addresses she had provided, and that she had not provided a telephone number. The tribunal also noted correspondence suggesting Amyris Inc was insolvent and that proceedings in the United States had produced a purported worldwide stay order, but it was not persuaded that it was obliged to stay the proceedings. The UK liquidators did not object to BLIL being joined, although they did not attend.

The tribunal found that the claimant had repeatedly failed to attend and had not complied with the direction requiring an explanation for her absence. It said her claim was briefly expressed and it was unclear what the issues were. On that basis, it concluded that she had deliberately and persistently disregarded procedural steps and that her conduct was unreasonable.

Applying rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and alternatively rule 37(1)(d), the tribunal held that a fair trial was not possible because no progress could be made in identifying the issues or setting a final hearing. It considered that no lesser order would address the problem, and it therefore struck out the claim.