Cases3203189/2022

Claimant v John Lewis Plc

25 April 2025Before Employment Judge B Elgotremote telephone

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because the tribunal considered it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The claimant had not attended any of the four preliminary hearings since filing his claim in May 2022, provided no medical evidence addressing when he might participate, and had been persistently in default of tribunal orders.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because the tribunal considered it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The claimant failed to attend hearings, failed to comply with tribunal orders, and provided no evidence of when he might be able to meaningfully engage in the proceedings.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

Struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because the tribunal considered it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. Despite suffering from severe anxiety, depression and cardiac problems, no medical evidence was provided giving any indication of when the claimant would be able to meaningfully engage in finalisation of issues, disclosure or the final hearing.

Breach of Contractstruck out

Struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because the tribunal considered it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing due to the claimant's persistent non-attendance and failure to comply with tribunal orders over a three-year period.

Whistleblowingstruck out

Struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because the tribunal considered it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The claimant had not engaged with the proceedings for almost three years and there was no evidence the situation would change in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Detrimentstruck out

Health and safety detriment claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because the tribunal considered it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing given the indefinite delay and persistent non-compliance with tribunal orders.

Holiday Paystruck out

Struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because the tribunal considered it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The claimant had not meaningfully pursued his case and there was real and substantial prejudice to the respondents.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

Unpaid wages claim struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because the tribunal considered it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing due to the claimant's non-attendance at all four preliminary hearings and persistent default of tribunal orders.

Facts

The claimant was dismissed by John Lewis for unsatisfactory attendance on 2 December 2021 after three years of very low attendance at work (2019-2021). He filed his ET1 on 12 May 2022 claiming unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination, breach of contract, whistleblowing/health and safety detriment, and claims for holiday pay and unpaid wages. Over the subsequent three years, he failed to attend any of four preliminary hearings, despite being represented by Mr Mustafa Ibrahim. The claimant suffered from severe anxiety, depression and cardiac problems but provided no medical evidence giving any prognosis as to when he might be able to participate in proceedings.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 38(1)(e) on the basis that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The claimant had not attended any preliminary hearing, had persistently failed to comply with tribunal orders (including orders to obtain specific medical evidence), and there was no indication he would be able to meaningfully engage in the foreseeable future. The tribunal refused the claimant's application for reconsideration, finding no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.

Practical note

A tribunal will strike out claims where a claimant's persistent non-attendance and failure to comply with orders over a three-year period makes a fair hearing impossible, even where the claimant suffers from serious health difficulties, if there is no medical prognosis indicating future ability to participate.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Rule 38(1)(e) Employment Tribunal Rules 2024Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024Rules 68-71 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024

Case details

Case number
3203189/2022
Decision date
25 April 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep