Claimant v Gap Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under rule 47 for non-attendance at preliminary hearing. The claimant failed to attend the hearing on 20 August 2025 despite being aware of it, failed to comply with multiple case management directions, and did not engage with correspondence since 4 April 2025, evincing an intention not to pursue the claim.
Claim struck out under rule 47 for non-attendance at preliminary hearing. The claimant failed to attend the hearing on 20 August 2025 despite being aware of it, failed to comply with multiple case management directions, and did not engage with correspondence since 4 April 2025, evincing an intention not to pursue the claim.
Harassment claim relating to statements one and two struck out under rule 47 for non-attendance. These allegations were identified as potentially out of time and required further clarification which the claimant failed to provide despite orders from Employment Judge Reid.
Harassment claim relating to statements one and two struck out under rule 47 for non-attendance. These allegations were identified as potentially out of time and required further clarification which the claimant failed to provide despite orders from Employment Judge Reid.
Facts
The claimant, a driver for an equipment hire company, brought claims of race and religious discrimination covering the period from November 2023 to June 2024. At a preliminary hearing on 5 June 2025, Employment Judge Reid identified time limit issues with certain harassment allegations and made multiple case management orders requiring the claimant to provide information by specific dates. The claimant failed to comply with any of these orders and did not attend the subsequent preliminary hearing on 20 August 2025, despite being aware of it and having his phone answered by the clerk at 10am that morning.
Decision
Employment Judge Barrett dismissed all claims under rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance at the hearing. The judge found the claimant had deliberately chosen not to attend, failed to comply with multiple case management directions, and had not engaged with correspondence since 4 April 2025. This constituted inordinate and inexcusable delay causing serious prejudice to the respondent and risking a fair hearing, making dismissal the proportionate sanction.
Practical note
Persistent non-compliance with case management orders combined with deliberate non-attendance at a preliminary hearing will result in dismissal of claims under rule 47, particularly where the claimant is unrepresented and shows no intention to pursue the claim.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6007322/2024
- Decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- driver
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No