no appearance or v Respondent — 2020

This was an open preliminary hearing on 23 July 2020 before Employment Judge Truscott QC. The claimant did not attend or have representation. The tribunal refused an application to postpone the hearing and considered the respondents' strike-out application, together with its own strike-out powers under rule 37 and the respondents' costs application under rule 76.

The tribunal reviewed a long procedural history from March 2019 onwards. It recorded repeated correspondence sent directly to the respondents despite guidance to use their solicitors, a late application to adjourn the 30 April 2019 preliminary hearing, non-attendance at the 25 November 2019 hearing, failure to comply with directions to particularise the ET1 and provide disability information, and failure to attend the 30 April 2020 telephone hearing and the 23 July 2020 hearing. The tribunal treated the conduct of the claimant's mother and father while acting for him as the claimant's conduct because he had not repudiated it.

Applying rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (d), and the authorities cited in the judgment including Bolch v Chipman, Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, De Keyser Limited v Wilson and Rolls Royce plc v Riddle, the tribunal found the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably, that important orders had not been complied with, and that the claim was not being actively pursued. It concluded that further case management would not put the case back on track and that strike out was proportionate. The respondents' costs application was not granted; although the tribunal found unreasonable conduct, it had no information about the claimant's means and made no award of costs.