Mr J McLauchlan v Respondent — 2026

Mr J McLauchlan brought claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and discrimination because of religion and belief against TLC (Car Care) Ltd. The tribunal recorded that he said he had been employed from 18 to 21 August 2025 and that the respondent disputed the claims. On 17 November 2025 the tribunal ordered written representations on the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service, and that complaint was then dismissed on 21 January 2026.

A preliminary hearing for case management was listed for 22 January 2026. The claimant did not complete the agenda, did not seek a postponement, and on 21 January 2026 emailed the tribunal saying he would be unable to join because he was working and could not afford representation. He did not attend the hearing and did not respond further after the tribunal warned him that dismissal was a possible consequence of non-attendance.

The Employment Judge recorded that various aspects of the complaints required clarification and particularisation, and that it was not possible to continue without the claimant in attendance, particularly because the PH agenda had not been completed. Taking all relevant circumstances into account, the tribunal concluded that the claimant did not appear to wish to actively pursue his extant complaints or had unreasonably failed to do so, and dismissed the case under Rule 47 in the interests of avoiding unnecessary waste of tribunal resources and expense to the respondent.