Mr M Pendry v The members of the committee of the Over 21 Club (an unincorporated association) Heard — 2024

The claimant presented an ET1 on 22 February 2023 alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination, holiday pay, and other payments. The respondent identified the need for further particulars, and the tribunal records a lengthy procedural history involving requests for particulars, case management directions, and repeated strike-out applications. A preliminary hearing on 24 May 2024 before Judge Dyal resulted in a case management order requiring the claimant to provide further information, including an impact statement and medical evidence relating to the alleged disabilities, but those orders were not complied with.

When the case came on for a four-day final hearing on 1 October 2024, the claimant did not attend. The tribunal clerk made enquiries and the claimant said he did not know of the hearing, that his daughter should have been on record as representing him, and that he wanted the matter to proceed in person. The tribunal found it likely that notice of the hearing had been sent and received, and also found that the claimant had received other tribunal and respondent correspondence during the proceedings.

The tribunal did not grant the respondent's strike-out application. Instead, applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, it considered the information available about the claimant's absence and dismissed the claim because he had failed to attend or be represented. The judgment records that the case was not trial ready, with no bundle and no witness statements, and that there was no evidence before the tribunal that the claimant was too unwell to comply with orders or attend. There was no merits determination of the pleaded discrimination or pay claims.