Mr N Ranjan v Mr S Fernando Heard by video — 2024

This was the second attempt at a final hearing. The matter had previously been adjourned on 29 September 2023 so the parties could exchange information and arrange interpreters. By 24 June 2024 the tribunal had not been able to source a Malayalam interpreter, so it emailed the claimant to ask whether he also spoke Tamil. The claimant replied at 17:30 on 24 June 2024 saying he had not been able to get a day off for the hearing date and adding that they had tried to get it but could not make it, which the tribunal took as an indication that he would not attend.

The claimant did not attend on 25 June 2024. The clerk tried to contact him that morning, but the call was hung up when asked for the claimant and a second attempt went to answerphone. The respondent attended, but the interpreter booked for the respondent also did not attend, and the hearing did not ultimately commence. The judge considered whether to proceed in the claimant’s absence or adjourn, but decided that dismissal was appropriate under rule 47 because the claimant had given notice only after close of business the day before, had not asked for a postponement, had given no assurance that attendance would not be a problem again, had not explained when he had sought the time off or why it had been refused, and had not provided supporting evidence.

The reasons also note that the claimant had not complied with the order to prepare and exchange a witness statement by 10 November 2023. The tribunal further recorded that one issue in the case was whether the correct employer was Kiki’s FDO Limited, which Companies House showed as dissolved, but that did not affect the decision to dismiss the claim because the claimant had brought the proceedings against Mr Fernando personally. No substantive merits findings were made on the underlying pleaded claims.