Mr D Adams v Be Smart Home Ltd — 2022

Mr D Adams brought claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and notice pay against Be Smart Home Ltd. At a preliminary hearing on 13 August 2021, the tribunal directed him to serve a witness statement by 26 November 2021 so that his claims and reasoning could be understood, including specific detail on the holiday pay and bonus elements of the wages claim. The claimant did not provide a witness statement by the hearing date of 4 January 2022.

The claimant applied for a postponement on the basis that he had not had enough time to prepare, and he also referred to Covid-19 illness shortly before the hearing. He was contacted by the tribunal clerk and agreed to attend after saying he was not significantly unwell. The tribunal therefore treated the illness application as falling away and considered the postponement request based on preparation time. The claimant accepted that he had known since the August hearing that he needed to produce a witness statement, but he had not started drafting one and had not raised timetable concerns with the tribunal until 30 December 2021.

The tribunal applied Rule 2, Rule 37(1)(d) and Rule 37(1)(e), and referred to Barton v Wright Hassell and Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant. It found that the claimant had not seriously attempted to comply with the order to provide a witness statement, that the respondent was unclear about the case it had to meet, and that the tribunal itself was not clear about the basis of the claims. In those circumstances, the only way to hear the case fairly would have been to postpone and abandon the listed trial window, which the tribunal said would not further the overriding objective.

All of the claimant’s claims were therefore struck out. No liability findings were made on the merits and no monetary award was recorded.