Cases3200810/2023

Claimant v ThorntonRones Limited

23 February 2024Before Employment Judge SugarmanEast Londonremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesdismissed on withdrawal

The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the full merits hearing on 23 February 2024 without notice or explanation. The claimant had previously failed to attend a hearing on 16 October 2023, failed to comply with multiple tribunal orders to provide particulars of his claim and supporting documents, and did not respond to the respondent's strike-out application. The tribunal found no basis to conclude the claimant would engage with the proceedings if the hearing were adjourned again.

Facts

The claimant brought a claim for unlawful deductions from wages relating to monies deducted from his final pay packet following termination on 18 January 2023. The respondent contended it was entitled to deduct holiday pay in respect of holidays taken in excess of what had accrued in the first year of employment. The claimant failed to attend two scheduled hearings (16 October 2023 and 23 February 2024), failed to comply with multiple tribunal orders requiring him to provide particulars and documents by specified deadlines, and did not respond to the respondent's strike-out application.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the full merits hearing on 23 February 2024 without notice or explanation. The judge found it would not be fair to proceed in the claimant's absence given the contentious legal issues regarding holiday pay deductions and disputed figures, and that the claimant bore the burden of proving his claim. The judge also concluded that adjourning would be futile given the claimant's repeated non-compliance and non-attendance.

Practical note

Persistent failure to comply with tribunal orders and attend hearings will result in dismissal under Rule 47, even where there may be arguable legal issues requiring determination, particularly where the claimant bears the burden of proof and has provided no evidence.

Legal authorities cited

Roberts v Skelmersdale College [2004] IRLR 69Hill v Howard Chapell, EAT/1250/02

Statutes

Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, Rule 47Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2001, Regulation 15AWorking Time Regulations 1998

Case details

Case number
3200810/2023
Decision date
23 February 2024
Hearing type
dismissal on withdrawal
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No