Not present and (see below) not represented For the v Respondent — 2020

Ms M Dimitrova's claims against Hilton UK Hotels Ltd and Mr G Bahia were listed for a five-day hearing starting on 29 June 2020, but before that trial the respondent applied for strike out after the claimant had failed to comply with a number of directions intended to prepare the case for hearing. A telephone hearing on 17 June 2020 was held before Employment Judge Hyams because of the Covid-19 pandemic and the practical and legal difficulties of holding a public hearing in person.

The claimant did not participate in the hearing. Her former solicitors, Lock and Marlborough, attended without instructions; Mr Edward Lock told the tribunal they had been acting without instructions for about a year, had not received instructions from the claimant since May 2019, and had received no response to communications asking her to respond. The file contained no written communication from the claimant explaining her absence or her non-compliance with directions.

The tribunal considered rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, which allows a tribunal to dismiss a claim or proceed in the absence of a party after considering any practicable enquiries about the reasons for that party's absence. Employment Judge Hyams held that Mr Lock was not representing the claimant for rule 47 purposes because he was attending only to avoid any breach of duty and was doing so without instructions.

The tribunal concluded that it was right to dismiss the claim because the claimant had failed, apparently without good reason, to attend or arrange representation at the 17 June 2020 hearing and because it appeared that the claim was not being actively pursued. The judgment records that the claimant's claims were dismissed and does not record any substantive merits findings or monetary award.