Ms K Boyle v Respondent — 2021

This was a claim for unfair dismissal listed for a one-day preliminary hearing to determine time bar. The effective date of termination was 20 January 2020 and the claim was presented on 9 March 2021. The claimant had previously obtained postponements on 26 July and 15 September 2021, and the hearing was fixed after she provided suitable dates.

The claimant attended a test call on 27 October 2021 but later emailed the tribunal saying she had only booked two hours off work, did not feel able to proceed by video link because of anxiety, and apologised for not being able to attend. A clerk replied that the hearing would proceed and that she could make representations at the outset, but she did not appear and was not represented. The respondent invited dismissal under Rule 47 and also argued for strike out under Rule 37 and expenses.

The tribunal considered that the claimant's first email might be construed as a withdrawal, supported by a later email received after the hearing. However, it focused on Rule 47 rather than strike out under Rule 37 because there was insufficient information to decide strike out. It found there was no justification for adjourning the hearing on the basis of the limited leave from work, and there was no medical evidence to show that any health condition prevented attendance.

Taking account of the respondent's position, including that it had a witness ready to give evidence and was defending a claim presented almost a year late without any reason advanced for lateness, the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47. It did not award expenses, noting that the claimant was unrepresented and that it was not appropriate to make such an award.