No attendance For the v Mr Hill, Director, Mr J Clarke, representative — 2025

The claimant brought a single claim for holiday pay, seeking £580 plus further sums described as debt interest or similar, producing a total claim of approximately £1,000. The respondent filed a defence in time, attached payslips, and acknowledged that £145.88 gross holiday pay was due; the tribunal was told at the hearing that this sum had been paid on 13 June 2024. An earlier hearing had been postponed for lack of a judge, and neither party had provided unavailability dates as requested. A new notice of hearing was sent on 23 October 2024.

At the hearing on 5 June 2024 before Employment Judge JM Wade, the respondent attended but there was no attendance by or on behalf of the claimant. The clerk attempted to telephone the claimant; by 10.10am no information had been received. The judge concluded that the most likely explanation was that, having received the payslips and calculation, the claimant had abandoned pursuit of the case, while acknowledging it was possible something untoward had prevented attendance.

The judge considered the impact on the administration of justice and noted that, although dismissal under Rule 47 is potentially draconian, the prejudice was reduced because a concession had been made and paid and the defence was arguable. The judge also considered it would not be just to hear sworn evidence without the claimant having the opportunity to challenge it. The claim was accordingly dismissed pursuant to Rule 47. A postscript records that the clerk subsequently made contact with the claimant, who was at work and could not spare the time to attend, which the judge considered consistent with the basis for dismissal.