Mr J Case v No appearance and No representation Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited — 2024

The claimant presented a claim of unfair dismissal and sought compensation. In the respondent’s grounds of resistance, it was said that the disciplinary allegations included two racist comments, that the claimant had acknowledged making one comment during the disciplinary process and both on appeal, and that he had previously received a final warning for use of racist language. The respondent applied for strike out under rule 37(1)(a), or alternatively a deposit order of £1,000, on the basis that the claim had little prospect of success.

The case was listed for a public preliminary hearing in person on 22 April 2024. The claimant did not attend and there was no appearance by or for him. The clerk telephoned him twice without success and left a message asking him to contact the Tribunal; no email explaining his absence was received. The judge noted that the claimant had corresponded with the Tribunal by email, had been sent the hearing notice, and had been sent the respondent’s hearing papers on 19 April 2024.

The claimant had earlier provided an explanation for delay in replying, saying that he did not have a laptop or computer, had borrowed his granddaughter’s laptop, did not deny making the comments, and gave his account of the context. The judge accepted that the hearing had been arranged in person to accommodate the claimant, but concluded that he knew or ought to have known about the hearing and had had no intention of attending. The claim was therefore dismissed under rule 47 for failure to attend the hearing. The judgment does not record any remedy because the claim was not determined on the merits.