Not present or represented For the v Respondent — 2022

The case was listed for an open preliminary hearing on 10 October 2022 to consider, among other things, whether the claimant's claims were out of time. The claimant emailed shortly before the hearing asking to postpone it for "multiple reasons" but did not give any reasons, and she did not join when the hearing started. The respondent attended through Ms R Snocken, who explained that the claimant had also sought a postponement from the respondent's solicitors on the previous day and had been told that any postponement application had to be made to the Tribunal and would be opposed.

The tribunal gave the claimant repeated opportunities to join the hearing and warned her that if she did not do so the hearing would proceed in her absence, her claim could be dismissed, and she could be liable for costs. The claimant said she could attend but still did not join. Ms Snocken said the claimant had not engaged with the respondent in preparation for the hearing, including agreeing the hearing bundle, and had had ample time since the hearing was listed in August 2022 to apply for a postponement.

Employment Judge P Klimov decided not to proceed in the claimant's absence because the claims required clarification and it was not possible to clarify the issues or give case management directions without the claimant or written representations from her. The judge also noted that the respondent's applications for strike out and/or a deposit order could not be dealt with in the claimant's absence. The judge then refused the postponement application because it was extremely late, no reasons were given, and there was no explanation for why the claimant had said she could attend but still failed to do so.

The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the respondent may apply for costs within 28 days of the judgment being sent to the parties, but no costs order was made in the decision itself.