Claimant v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 47 for non-pursuit. The claimant failed to attend four scheduled hearings despite repeated warnings. The respondent had argued the claim had no reasonable prospect of success due to Paragraph 14 Schedule 9 Equality Act 2010, which permits withdrawal of death in service benefits at age 65 or state pension age.
The claimant mentioned harassment in his claim form but never attended case management hearings to clarify the basis of this claim. The claim was struck out under Rule 47 for failure to attend hearings and pursue the claim.
The claimant mentioned victimisation in his claim form but failed to attend any hearings to particularise this claim. It was dismissed under Rule 47 for non-pursuit after the claimant failed to attend the fourth scheduled hearing.
The claimant stated that death in service benefits were part of his contract and could not be cancelled without agreement. The claim was struck out under Rule 47 for non-attendance at hearings and failure to actively pursue the claim.
Facts
The claimant, an employee of G4S, brought claims of age discrimination after being told his death in service benefits would cease at age 80. He also alleged harassment, victimisation, and breach of contract, referencing the Equality Act 2010, Human Rights Act 1998, and European law. The respondent argued the claim had no reasonable prospect of success due to the statutory exemption in Paragraph 14 Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010, which permits withdrawal of such benefits at age 65 or state pension age. The claimant failed to attend four scheduled case management hearings despite repeated warnings and extensions.
Decision
Employment Judge Laidler dismissed all claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 due to the claimant's repeated non-attendance at hearings. The claimant had been warned after the third non-attendance that the claim would be struck out, and despite further warnings before the fourth hearing, he again failed to attend. The tribunal found the claimant was not actively pursuing his claim.
Practical note
Persistent non-attendance at case management hearings, even after explicit strike-out warnings, will result in dismissal under Rule 47 regardless of the potential merits of the underlying claim.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3312310/2023
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No