Claimant v Warrens Warehouse & Distribution (Midlands) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under rule 47 for non-attendance by claimant at preliminary hearing. Claimant failed to attend case management hearing listed to consider her proposed amendments to the claim form and provide the factual basis for automatically unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996.
Claim struck out under rule 47 for non-attendance. Claimant had indicated intention to pursue protected disclosure claim under s103A ERA 1996 but failed to attend hearing to substantiate the factual basis and did not provide sufficient detail in written amendment application.
Claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s100 ERA 1996 (health and safety) struck out under rule 47 for non-attendance. Claimant mentioned this claim in email but did not attend hearing to provide factual particulars or explain proposed amendment.
Notice pay claim struck out under rule 47 for claimant's failure to attend case management hearing. This was identified as the original basis of the claim but struck out along with entire case due to non-attendance.
Breach of contract claim (working 45 hours per week when contract stipulated 37.5 hours) struck out under rule 47 for non-attendance. Claimant mentioned this claim in her 13 February 2025 email but failed to attend hearing to particularise it.
Facts
The claimant was employed by a warehouse and distribution company for less than two years. At a previous preliminary hearing before EJ Freshwater on 6 December 2024, the claimant attended and discussed her intended claims including automatically unfair dismissal under s103A and s100 ERA 1996, notice pay, and breach of contract regarding working hours (45 hours vs contracted 37.5 hours). The claimant was ordered to apply in writing to amend her claim form to set out the factual basis for these claims. She sent an email on 13 February 2025 listing the legal heads of claim but without providing the underlying facts. A case management hearing was listed for 24 February 2025 to consider the proposed amendments, but the claimant failed to attend and provided no explanation for her absence.
Decision
Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto dismissed the entire claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 due to the claimant's non-attendance at the case management hearing. The judge noted that the claimant had not provided the factual basis for her proposed amendments despite being ordered to do so, and there was no explanation for her failure to attend. The previously scheduled five-day final hearing in November 2026 was vacated.
Practical note
Failure to attend a case management hearing without explanation, particularly after being ordered to provide essential particulars of claim, can result in the entire claim being struck out under rule 47 even at a preliminary stage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3314766/2023
- Decision date
- 24 February 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No