Did not attend For the v Mr H Felix, solicitor — 2020

The claimant was employed by the respondent, a firm of solicitors, as a paralegal and costs draftsperson from 2 January 2020 until 18 March 2020. He presented two claims, which were consolidated by order dated 15 September 2020. At the preliminary hearing listed for 27 August 2020, the claimant did not attend and the tribunal could not make progress in his absence. The tribunal then ordered him to provide further particulars of his claim by 21 September 2020.

The claimant did not comply with that order. The respondent made a strike out application on 7 October 2020 under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing on 23 November 2020 was converted into a public preliminary hearing by cloud video platform to consider strike out for non-compliance, with case management directions to follow if the claims were not struck out.

At 10:00am on 23 November 2020 the respondent attended by solicitor Mr Felix, but the claimant did not. A tribunal clerk emailed and telephoned the claimant to ask why he had not attended and to offer assistance if needed. The hearing was delayed until 10:35am, but the claimant still had not attended and had not responded. The tribunal noted this was the second hearing he had not attended.

Having considered the file and the respondent's submissions, the tribunal decided the claims should be struck out because the claimant had failed to comply with the order to provide further information. It also dismissed the claim because he failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. In reaching that decision, the tribunal took into account that he had been given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the order and to oppose the respondent's application, and that he had not communicated with the tribunal or the respondent about his absence.