Mr B Lashore v Not present or represented Weatherford UK Ltd — 2020

The tribunal recorded that the only substantive claim before it was Mr B Lashore’s automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also noted the long case management history and that attempts to introduce an ordinary unfair dismissal claim had already been refused and were treated as closed.

For the final hearing on 19 November 2020, the tribunal had already dealt with an application to postpone pending an appeal to the EAT and refused it. In correspondence, Mr Lashore said he did not believe in the legitimacy of the hearing and would not be a part of it. He did not provide a contact number for the preliminary social-distancing call and did not appear when the hearing started.

Applying Rule 47, Employment Judge McFatridge found that the claimant’s absence was a conscious decision not to attend. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s submission that, because the claim depended on proof that protected disclosures had been made and the respondent did not accept that any protected disclosures had been made, there was no realistic way the claim could succeed in the claimant’s absence. The claim was therefore dismissed.

The respondent’s counsel indicated an intention to seek expenses, but the tribunal did not determine that issue at the hearing. Instead, it invited the respondent to submit any written motion for expenses within 14 days of the hearing.