Miss C Hartnup v Gardiner Distribution Limited — 2023

Miss C Hartnup presented a claim for notice pay, pleaded at £1,865.40. The respondent’s account was that she had resigned earlier than she said, had taken accrued annual leave, and had then been offered a different working-from-home role; the judgment records these as the parties’ respective positions, not findings of fact, because no evidence was heard.

The case was listed and relisted several times. The tribunal noted that the claimant’s representative had indicated that the claimant might not attend the hearing, and at the final listing the claimant was unavailable. Mr Lovelock proposed to give evidence on her behalf, but the tribunal proceeded on the basis of the written material that had been provided.

The tribunal referred to rule 42 on written representations and rule 47 on non-attendance. Although the written documentation had not been submitted seven days before the hearing, it was considered. The tribunal found that there was no reasonable explanation for the claimant’s non-attendance at a video hearing listed for two hours.

The claim was dismissed for non-attendance. The judgment does not contain a substantive merits determination on whether the claimant was entitled to notice pay, and it records no monetary award.