The claimant did not appear and was not represented For the v Ms McKenzie, representative (Peninsula) — 2024

The claimant presented an ET1 on 28 November 2023 alleging employment as a taxi driver from 1 September 2021 to 2 November 2023 and ticking claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion or belief, detriment for public interest disclosure, redundancy pay, breach of contract relating to notice, unlawful deductions from wages, accrued but unpaid holiday pay and other payments. The respondent denied the claims and said the claimant was self-employed as a private hire vehicle driver; it also said that after an assault on a local taxi driver, Exeter City Council revoked his PHV licence, so it was unlawful for the respondent, as a licensed PHV operator, to offer him private hire work as an unlicensed driver.

The tribunal made no findings on the substance of the claims or on employment status. It recorded that the ET1 contained very limited factual detail, that the claimant did not explain his non-attendance at a 5 June 2024 case management hearing, and that he did not confirm whether he still wished to pursue the case. Directions had required attendance, agreement of a document bundle, exchange of witness statements and service of those documents on the tribunal, but the claimant did not comply. The tribunal also found that he did not engage with the proceedings after presenting the claim form, apart from an email copied to the tribunal on 5 June and an email to the respondent on 4 October.

At the hearing on 8 October 2024, Employment Judge Hogarth struck out all claims under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, finding that the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claims. The judge held that strike out was proportionate because the case was not ready for final hearing, there had been delay and wasted time, and the respondent had been prejudiced by the lack of particulars. In the alternative, the judge dismissed the claims under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and gave no information explaining his absence. The proceedings therefore ended without any substantive determination of the pleaded claims.