Miss Carla Vecci v Ms Sarah Hesz — 2022

The case was listed for a final hearing on 2 March 2023. The claimant had asked for the hearing to be changed from video to in-person because she said she would not have access to a computer, and that application was granted. The tribunal record states that the date and time had already been set in the case management order, and the later communication about the venue was on tribunal headed paper for Montague Court, 101 London Road, London CR0 2RF.

Neither party attended the hearing. The tribunal telephoned Ms Vecci, who said she was not sure where the hearing would take place and that she was feeling unwell. She later emailed apologising for not attending, referring to ongoing conditions, and asking for the hearing to be rescheduled. The tribunal accepted that she was aware of the date and time, and found that if she had been unsure about the venue she could and should have asked before the evening before the hearing.

Employment Judge Smith found that the claimant's references to being unwell were generic and did not amount to a good reason for non-attendance. The tribunal also noted that she did not apply to adjourn the hearing when she contacted it the night before on health grounds. On that basis, the judge concluded that the claimant had failed to attend or be represented without sufficiently good reason and dismissed the notice pay claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.