Mr S Constable v Agricultural Harvest Store Installations Limited — 2025

The claimant presented complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination in his ET1 dated 25 June 2023. The respondent denied the claims in its ET3. Case management orders made on 13 November 2023 required medical records and a disability impact statement, but the claimant did not fully comply. The case was then listed for several private preliminary hearings, with one adjournment after Employment Judge Laidler warned the claimant on 11 July 2024 that continued non-compliance could lead to strike out.

On 26 July 2024 the respondent applied for a public preliminary hearing, seeking strike out or, alternatively, a deposit order on the basis that the claims had little or no reasonable prospects of success and that the claimant had not complied with directions. The tribunal granted only the deposit-order application. A notice of hearing issued on 8 November 2024 required the claimant to provide evidence of his means for the deposit hearing, but he did not do so despite repeated requests from the respondent. The claimant also did not complete the tribunal's pre-trial checklist.

At the hearing on 5 February 2025 the claimant did not attend. The respondent asked the tribunal to strike out the claim under Rule 38 or, alternatively, to dismiss it under Rule 47. The judge decided that strike out would be unfair because the hearing had been listed only to consider a deposit order, and relied on Kolev v Middlesex University [2023] EAT 173 on the need for clarity of purpose and adequate notice. The tribunal adjourned briefly and converted the hearing to a hybrid hearing so the claimant could join by video, but he did not do so.

The judge found that the claimant had been on notice of the hearing for nearly three months, had been warned about the consequences of non-attendance, and had failed to provide evidence of means despite a clear direction. The tribunal considered the failure to comply with the means direction to be wilful. Because the claimant was absent and the deposit application could not sensibly proceed in his absence, the tribunal dismissed the claim in full under Rule 47. The final hearing was vacated. The respondent said it intended to seek costs of £3,000 arising from the day's hearing, but no costs decision was made.