Ms E Higgins v Respondent — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing in an unfair dismissal claim brought by Ms E Higgins against with YOU Ltd. The issue listed for determination was whether the claimant had the qualifying length of service to bring the claim. The claimant said her employment began on 5 December 2018; the respondent said it began on 27 May 2019, with the earlier period being agency work.

On the morning of the hearing the claimant emailed saying she was unwell and asked for the hearing to be rescheduled, and later sent a text saying she could not attend. The tribunal allowed the hearing to proceed as scheduled and considered any postponement request at the start, but the claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent applied for dismissal under Rule 47 and relied on a history of repeated non-compliance with tribunal requests for evidence on the service issue.

The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not responded to multiple requests and directions, and that the only documents produced shortly before the hearing were bank statements which did not support her case on service. It noted that the claimant had been able to send emails and texts during the relevant period, and that the respondent had offered to accommodate breaks if she attended. The tribunal considered the claimant's request for postponement with scepticism and held that the history of non-compliance, together with the prejudice and inconvenience to the respondent and third-party witnesses, justified dismissal of the claim under Rule 47. No expenses order was made.