Ms L McKenna v No appearance and No representation The Actual Reality Trust — 2024

At a preliminary hearing on 18 March 2024 by Cloud Video Platform before Employment Judge Smith, the claimant did not attend. The record notes that the hearing had originally been listed for 19 February 2024, that the claimant had obtained one postponement because she could not get time off work, and that she later sought a further postponement on 15 March 2024 because a colleague had called in sick and her new employer needed her to work. That second postponement request was refused on the papers.

In the claimant's absence, the respondent applied to strike out the claim. The Tribunal refused that application, saying strike out is a draconian power and that less draconian options were available to deal with the non-attendance while preserving the proceedings. It noted that the claimant's non-attendance left the claims unclear and caused further delay, which it described as highly unsatisfactory.

Instead of striking out the case immediately, the Tribunal directed that a strike-out warning letter be sent to the claimant requiring her to show cause why the claim should not be struck out as not actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The Tribunal also directed that the hearing would not be relisted until that issue had been dealt with and, if necessary, the claimant persuaded the Tribunal not to strike out the case.