Miss R. Gibbin v Innovations in Care — 2025

This was listed as a case management preliminary hearing on 6 June 2025. Miss R. Gibbin did not attend. The tribunal noted that notice of the hearing had been sent by post to the address on the ET1, rather than by email as requested, but the claimant later confirmed to the clerk that she had received the notice and the CVP link. She said she was at work and did not ask for the hearing to be postponed.

The respondent, Innovations in Care, asked for the claim to be dismissed. The tribunal was told that the claimant had not previously provided emails or the documentation requested for the hearing, and there were no attendance notes showing contact with her during the proceedings. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not attended at 10am or 2pm despite being aware of the hearing date.

Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules and the overriding objective in Rule 3, the tribunal decided not to proceed in the claimant’s absence because the purpose of the hearing was to clarify the claim. It considered dismissal and a strike-out warning, but concluded that dismissal was the proportionate course in the circumstances. The tribunal said the age discrimination claim contained no clear particulars, and the wages claim had been answered by the respondent’s position that the outstanding wages had been paid in full after the ET1 was presented.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim, recording that the claimant had shown no active interest in pursuing it and that further delay and cost to the respondent would not be proportionate.