Claimant v Nomad Digital Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim dismissed under Rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance at the final hearing on 15 September 2025. The claimant failed to attend despite multiple refusals of postponement applications and failed to provide medical evidence supporting his assertion of unfitness to attend.
Claim dismissed under Rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance at the final hearing on 15 September 2025. The claimant chose not to attend, principally because he wished the EAT to adjudicate his claims pending his appeal, and provided no adequate medical evidence of unfitness.
Claim for notice pay dismissed under Rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance at the final hearing on 15 September 2025. The claimant failed to provide medical evidence as directed by the tribunal and did not renew his postponement application.
Struck out at a preliminary hearing on 13 March 2025 on the grounds that the claimant was employed for less than the required two year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims.
Struck out by Judge Gowland on 11 August 2025 for failure to pay a deposit of £480 by the deadline of 4 June 2025. A deposit order had been made on the grounds that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success.
Struck out by Judge Gowland on 11 August 2025 for failure to pay a deposit of £480 by the deadline of 4 June 2025. A deposit order had been made on the grounds that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success.
Struck out by Judge Gowland on 11 August 2025 for failure to pay a deposit of £480 by the deadline of 4 June 2025. A deposit order had been made on the grounds that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success.
Struck out by Judge Gowland on 11 August 2025 for failure to pay a deposit of £480 by the deadline of 4 June 2025. A deposit order had been made on the grounds that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the respondent from 9 October 2023 to 19 March 2024, resigning during his extended probationary period while on sick leave. He brought claims for breach of contract, wrongful dismissal and notice pay, alleging the respondent had no contractual right to extend his probationary period and he was entitled to longer notice. His discrimination and unfair dismissal claims were previously struck out. The claimant made seven postponement applications in four weeks, primarily seeking to delay the final hearing pending his appeal to the EAT, and also citing medical unfitness following an alleged assault on 6 September 2025.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all remaining claims under Rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance at the final hearing on 15 September 2025. The tribunal found the claimant chose not to attend primarily because he wanted the EAT to adjudicate his claims first, and he failed to provide any medical evidence supporting his assertion of unfitness to attend despite clear directions from the tribunal and requests from the respondent. The tribunal concluded it was neither desirable nor practicable to hear the case in his absence given he bore the burden of proof.
Practical note
A claimant who makes successive unsuccessful postponement applications cannot unilaterally decide not to attend a final hearing without providing proper medical evidence in accordance with Presidential Guidance, and risks dismissal of claims under Rule 47 for non-attendance, particularly where the primary motivation appears to be a desire to await the outcome of an appeal rather than genuine medical incapacity.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2501278/2024
- Decision date
- 19 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No