Stark v Not present or represented Hoi Barbers Ltd — 2025

At a closed preliminary hearing on 13 January 2025, Employment Judge McFatridge dismissed the claim under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Ms Bowman. The clerk telephoned the claimant and left a voicemail message, and also emailed her, but no response was received before the hearing began.

The claimant’s ET1 said she had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of disability, with reference to anxiety and panic attacks, her performance, and an alleged comment by her manager. The respondent denied the claim, did not accept that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time, said it had not been told of any disability or impairment, denied that the alleged words were used, and maintained that the claimant had resigned rather than been dismissed.

The tribunal held that the claim was insufficiently specified on the papers and that further information would be needed before it could properly deal with the matter. It also noted that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring a claim of unfair dismissal, and that the ET1 did not make clear which specific kinds of discrimination were alleged. In those circumstances, and without information explaining the claimant’s absence, the tribunal decided that dismissal was the appropriate course. It noted that if there had been a genuine emergency, an application for reconsideration could be made and might be granted.