E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4104780/2020 Mr C Martin v No appearance Ministry of Defence — 2022

A final hearing was listed in Dundee for 26, 27 and 30 May 2022. The tribunal recorded that two earlier final hearings had already been postponed, first because the claimant said he had technical difficulties when the hearing was to be remote, and then because he said the day before that he thought he had covid and could not attend. He was ordered to comply with Presidential Guidance and provide evidence of a positive covid test, but he did not do so despite repeated requests.

On 10 May 2022 the claimant emailed the tribunal with a sick line saying he was unable to get about because of asthma. The tribunal replied that the fit note referred to being unfit for work, that the hearing was in person, and that any adjournment would need to be made under rule 30A and supported by an application copied to the respondent. No such adjournment application was made. On 25 May the respondent asked for clarification on whether the claimant would attend and applied for strike out if he did not. The claimant did not confirm his attendance until 15.40 that day, when he said he was unable to attend and did not expect to be any better by the morning; the next morning he confirmed at 07.52 that he would not attend.

The tribunal postponed the merits hearing and listed a telephone conference to consider the strike-out application. The claimant was asked to submit any objection in writing and attend to make oral submissions, but he did not join the telephone hearing and no objection was received. Dr Gibson appeared for the respondent and renewed the application.

The Employment Judge accepted the respondent's submissions and held that the claimant had shown no regard for the inconvenience and cost caused to the tribunal administration and the respondent. The tribunal found that he had been given three opportunities to advance the claim and had failed to do so each time. It concluded that the claimant had failed to actively pursue the claim and had acted unreasonably by not complying with Presidential Guidance, not attending the hearing, not seeking postponement, and not providing any acceptable reason for non-attendance. The claim was therefore struck out under rule 37 on the grounds in rule 37(1)(b) and rule 37(1)(c).