Not present or represented For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant's ET1 alleged race, disability and sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and an additional 'other' claim linked to raising concerns about discrimination and later dismissal. The respondents said she had been engaged through Nicholas Howard Limited as a temporary Accounts Payable Administrator, working remotely and using her own laptop, and denied the factual allegations. The tribunal had earlier told the claimant that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim appeared to face the two-year service threshold under s.108 ERA 1996 unless she could show a protected disclosure dismissal point.

After the claimant emailed on 19 January 2022 saying the case was an interim relief application and that she had been unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures, Employment Judge Quill ordered her to provide full details of the alleged protected disclosures by 24 March 2022. The claimant did not provide the ordered particulars despite follow-up correspondence from the respondents' solicitors on 16 May, 23 May and 24 May 2022 seeking the information and further particulars. She later asked for someone to attend the hearing and mentioned an interpreter, but the file did not show any interpreter request.

The relisted hearing took place by CVP on 13 July 2022. The claimant did not attend, and at 09:53 that morning emailed only that she was not able to join on her phone. Applying rule 47 and referring to Roberts v Skelmersdale College and Nyathi v Secretary of State for Justice, the judge concluded that she had had ample opportunity to attend and was not genuinely pressing the claims. He dismissed all of the claims and said any reconsideration application would need to explain her attendance efforts and answer the outstanding particulars; no remedy was awarded.