Not present or represented For the v Respondent — 2022

At a public preliminary hearing on 10 December 2024, Employment Judge Hyams considered the claimant's non-attendance and the parties' correspondence about compliance with case-management orders. The claimant had not provided the witness statement ordered by EJ Tobin on 7 April 2022, had not engaged with repeated requests from the respondent for that statement, and had not attended the hearing. The tribunal applied rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The judge noted that the ET1 contained enough factual assertions for the respondent to understand the claimant's core case, and that the respondent's witness statements had been sent with password protection. The judgment also recorded that the claimant had focused on applications about video evidence and had sought a stay from the EAT, but no stay of the employment tribunal proceedings was in place.

In those circumstances, the tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination because it was contrary to the interests of justice to require the respondent to attend the following day when the claimant appeared not to intend to do so and had remained in breach of the witness statement order. The judgment did not determine the merits of either claim. The judge noted that the claimant could apply for reconsideration under rule 71, but indicated such an application would be unlikely to succeed if he still had not complied with the witness statement order and did not state an intention to attend a relisted hearing.