Claimant v Hengist Restaurant Aylesford Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant did not have the necessary two years' continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal sent a strike-out warning letter on 25 June 2025 giving the claimant until 16 July 2025 to provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out, but no reply was received. The claim was therefore struck out under rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospects of success.
The claimant failed to attend the hearing citing a family emergency but did not apply for an adjournment. The tribunal dismissed this claim under rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance, lack of engagement in preparation for the hearing, and absence of any request for an adjournment.
The claimant claimed accumulated holiday pay was not paid but never quantified or explained this claim in detail. The claimant failed to attend the hearing and provided no supporting documents. The tribunal dismissed this claim under rule 47 for non-attendance.
Claims for arrears of pay and other payments were referenced in the claim form but never quantified or explained in detail. The claimant failed to attend the hearing, provided no supporting documents, and made no engagement in preparation. The tribunal dismissed these claims under rule 47.
Facts
Ms Drew brought claims against her former employer, a restaurant company, including unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, and arrears of pay. She had less than two years' service. The tribunal sent a strike-out warning on 25 June 2025 regarding the unfair dismissal claim, giving her until 16 July 2025 to respond, but she did not reply. On the hearing date, she failed to attend, citing a family emergency by email but making no adjournment application.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 38(1)(a) as the claimant lacked the required two years' service and had no reasonable prospects of success. The remaining claims for notice pay, holiday pay, and arrears were dismissed under rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance at the hearing, lack of preparation, and failure to request an adjournment. The respondent attended and provided supporting documentation.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants who fail to engage with tribunal procedures, including responding to strike-out warnings and attending hearings, risk having their claims struck out or dismissed even where they may have had legitimate contractual claims for notice and holiday pay.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6006573/2025
- Decision date
- 4 August 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No