Ms A Murray v Respondent — 2023

The case was listed for a three-day hearing beginning on 2 May 2023, but the claimant did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to comply with any of the case management orders sent on 23 February 2023, and that the respondent had previously applied for strike out or a deposit order on 24 February 2023, with that application refused on 27 March 2023.

By letter dated 5 April 2023, the tribunal warned the claimant that the claim might be struck out because it had not been actively pursued under Rule 37(1)(d) of the 2013 Rules, and invited representations or a hearing request. The claimant did not make representations. She later sought a postponement, but that application was refused on 13 April 2023.

The respondent renewed its strike out application on 21 April 2023 on the basis that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and had not complied with the tribunal’s orders. The claimant was asked for comments by 24 April 2023, but did not reply. When the hearing started on 2 May 2023, the claimant had still not appeared and the tribunal telephoned the number on her claim form, which went to voicemail.

The tribunal held that, after presenting the claim, the claimant had done nothing to progress it apart from a late request for postponement. It concluded that the claim should be struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) and/or Rule 47 of the 2013 Rules. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the underlying claim, and no remedy was awarded.