Mrs Mihaela Vasiliu v Barclays Services Limited — 2019

The full merits hearing had been listed for late July and early August 2019 and had already heard evidence from the claimant and three respondent witnesses before it was adjourned on 2 August 2019 after the claimant said she had become seriously ill and been taken to hospital on 31 July 2019. The tribunal granted a postponement on 2 August 2019, but ordered the claimant to provide medical evidence by 2 September 2019 and to provide any reasonable adjustment requirements for the resumed hearing, which was relisted for 7 to 11 October 2019.

The claimant did not provide the ordered medical evidence. She sent an email on 30 August 2019 saying the doctor was on holiday and that she might not be able to submit the completed translated questionnaire by 2 September, but she did not respond to the respondent’s reminder and did not make any effective further response to the strike-out application dated 12 September 2019. On 4 October 2019 she sought a further postponement of at least two months and a recusal of the judge, but no medical reason was advanced for that application and the tribunal refused it.

When the hearing resumed on 7 October 2019 the claimant did not attend. The respondent applied to strike out under rule 37 and asked the tribunal not to proceed in her absence under rule 47. The tribunal held that, without the required medical evidence, the claimant had breached the order of 2 August 2019 and that her failure to comply amounted to unreasonable and contumelious conduct. It also considered the extent of the allegations, some of which had an unclear basis, and the fact that five respondent witnesses remained to be heard. The tribunal concluded it would not be proportionate to continue in the claimant’s absence and that it would be artificial and unattractive to make findings on allegations where the claimant could not challenge the witnesses. It therefore struck out the claimant’s claims under rule 37(1)(b) and (c).