Michelle Freeborn v A D Super Ltd — 2021

The hearing was listed for 24 November 2021 at East London Hearing Centre by Cloud Video Platform. The claimant, Michelle Freeborn, did not attend, was not represented, and sent no representations. The respondent also had no representative present in the hearing, although a representative attempted to join the CVP hearing but did not press start and so did not enter the hearing.

Employment Judge Housego noted that, at noon, no-one was in the hearing. The tribunal telephoned the claimant's mobile number given on the claim form, but there was no answer and no message was left. There was no contact from the claimant explaining her absence, and the notice of hearing appeared to be in order. The judge referred to Rule 47 on non-attendance and to the cases of General Medical Council v Hayat and Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth on the need for satisfactory evidence or explanation when a party does not attend.

The judge found the claimant's non-attendance unexplained and recorded that enquiries had been made. The decision was that it is the duty of litigants to attend their hearings, the claimant did not attend, and there was no documentary evidence that might lead to the claim succeeding. The claims were therefore struck out under Rule 47. No remedy or monetary award was made.