Not present or represented For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant had ticked only the unfair dismissal box on the ET1. At a preliminary hearing on 19 April 2022, the tribunal ordered him to confirm whether he wished to pursue a whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B or a section 103A unfair dismissal claim, and if so to identify the qualifying disclosure and the detriment or dismissal relied on. He did not comply with that order.

On the morning of the 20 June 2022 telephone hearing, the claimant emailed saying he had been diagnosed with coronavirus the previous week and asked for the hearing to be postponed. The tribunal replied that the hearing would go ahead and that any postponement application would need to be made at the hearing. The claimant did not answer when called, and the tribunal proceeded with the respondent's counsel present only.

Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the Employment Judge dismissed the claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. The reasons given were that the claimant had not complied with the earlier order, had not explained the failure or sought more time, and appeared not to be pursuing the claim. The judge said dismissal was in the interests of justice.

The judgment noted that if the claimant had a genuine reason for not attending, he could seek a review, but any such application would need cogent evidence that he had Covid-19 on 20 June 2022 and compliance with the outstanding order; otherwise it was likely to fail.