Cases3302575/2023

Claimant v AB INBEV (UK) Limited

16 October 2025Before Employment Judge L CowenWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(sex)dismissed on withdrawal

Claimant failed to attend final merits hearing despite multiple opportunities and postponement requests. The tribunal dismissed the claim as the claimant was not actively engaging in the litigation process, had failed to comply with orders including providing a witness statement, and could not guarantee when she would be able to participate.

Detrimentdismissed on withdrawal

Public interest disclosure detriment claim dismissed for the same reasons as the sex discrimination claim - claimant non-attendance and failure to engage with the tribunal process meant the hearing could not proceed and postponement would be prejudicial to the respondent.

Facts

The claimant brought claims of sex discrimination and whistleblowing detriment against AB InBev. A 10-day final hearing was listed for September 2025. The claimant made multiple postponement applications, including one rejected in July 2025 and another in August 2025 citing knee surgery scheduled for 8 September and other medical appointments. The claimant failed to attend the hearing, citing inability to travel due to lack of funds, inability to connect remotely, and dyslexia. The claimant had also failed to comply with tribunal orders including providing a witness statement.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's postponement application and dismissed the claim under rule 47. The tribunal found the claimant was not actively engaging in the litigation process, had given no guarantee of when she could participate, and that postponement would prejudice the respondent whose witnesses had relocated to New Zealand. The tribunal concluded the claimant's long-term issues with attendance would not be resolved by postponement.

Practical note

A tribunal may dismiss a claim where a claimant repeatedly fails to attend hearings and comply with orders, particularly where the reasons for non-attendance are ongoing issues that would not be resolved by postponement and where delay would significantly prejudice the respondent.

Legal authorities cited

Goldman Sachs Services Ltd v Montali [2002] ICR 1251Pye v Queen Mary University of London EAT 0374/11

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 rule 30Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 rule 3Civil Procedure Rules 1988Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 rule 47Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 rule 32

Case details

Case number
3302575/2023
Decision date
16 October 2025
Hearing type
dismissal on withdrawal
Hearing days
2
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No