Claim Dropped: Employment Tribunal Rules on Non-Appearing Party
📌 In brief
An employment tribunal dismissed a worker’s case because they did not show up for the scheduled hearing on April 22, 2025. This highlights how crucial it is for individuals involved in legal proceedings to attend their court dates.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant’s failure to attend a scheduled hearing can result in the dismissal of their case.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's employment tribunal claim was dismissed due to non-attendance.
📜 Headnote Official document
The employment tribunal dismissed a claimant's case due to their non-attendance at the scheduled hearing. The decision underscores the requirement for parties to adhere to procedural requirements and attend hearings as required.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case No 6003526/2024
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
Manchester Employment Tribunal (by CVP)
On: 22nd April 2025 Before: Employment Judge Thompson (sitting alone)
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
1. Unless the Claimant writes to the Tribunal by 4pm on 14 days of receipt of this judgment confirming (i) his intention to proceed with the claim; and (ii) his dates of availability to attend a relisted case management hearing within the next 6 months; and (iii) the reasons why he is unable to attend any case management hearing remotely, then his claim shall be struck out without further order pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
2. Unless the Respondent writes to the Tribunal by 4pm on 14 days of receipt of this judgment confirming (i) its intention to proceed with the employer’s contract claim; and (ii) dates of availability to attend a relisted case management hearing within the next 6 months, then the employer’s contract claim shall be struck out without further order pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
Case No 6003526/2024
2
REASONS
3. This matter was listed before me for a remote hearing on 22nd April 2025. It was originally listed for a final hearing but had been converted to a case management hearing. The reasons for doing so were because both the claim and response were very unclear.
4. The Claimant had provided an agenda prior to the hearing which states that he would be unable to attend a CVP hearing. He had previously been invited to provide any cogent reasons why he could not attend a CVP hearing. He did not attend the hearing on 22nd April 2025.
5. The Respondent had requested an adjournment of the hearing on 22nd April 2025 because it was [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]’s birthday. That request had been refused. He also did not attend the hearing today.
6. As there is both a claim and an employer’s contract claim and neither party has attended today, I will give them both an opportunity to confirm whether the respective claims are being pursued and if so to write to the Tribunal with their dates of availability to attend a case management hearing. If the Claimant wishes to have the case management hearing heard in person, he is required to provide cogent written reasons to the Tribunal why he is unable to attend a remote hearing.
Employment Judge Thompson
Date 22nd April 2025
ORDER SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
Date: 11 June 2025
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
(1) Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with an Order to which section 7(4) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 applies shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £1,000.00.
Case No 6003526/2024
3 (2) Under rule 6, if this Order is not complied with, the Tribunal may take such action as it considers just which may include (a) waiving or varying the requirement; (b) striking out the claim or the response, in whole or in part, in accordance with rule 37; (c) barring or restricting a party’s participation in the proceedings; and/or (d) awarding costs in accordance with rules 74-84.
(3) You may apply under rule 29 for this Order to be varied, suspended or set aside.
Case No: 6003526/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
Manchester Employment Tribunal (in private; by CVP)
On:
08 April 2026
Before:
Employment Judge M [NAME] Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
1. Having regard to rule 47 of the ET (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024, having delayed the start of the hearing until 10.30am, having made enquiries on the non-[APPELLANT] of the claimant, and having taken account of the information available to me on the tribunal file, the claim brought under case number 6003526/2024 is dismissed in its entirety on the grounds of the claimant’s non-[APPELLANT] at this hearing.
Approved by:
Employment Judge M [NAME]: 08 April 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
26 May 2026
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Case No: 6003526/2024
Public access to employment tribunal decisions
Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.
Recording and Transcription
Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and- legislation-practice-directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal and Victimisation Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out: Insufficient Factual Basis Provided
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim, Orders Deposit for …
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Redundancy Payment Claim for Missing Step
- Employment Tribunal Disability Discrimination Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claim Dismissed Due to Non-Attendance
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Being Out of Tim…
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Statutory Bar
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out for Not Following Court Orders
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strips Discrimination Claims for Lack of Merit
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The employment tribunal dismissed the claimant's case due to non-attendance.
Who was involved?
A worker (the claimant) and an employer (respondent).
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that because the claimant failed to attend the hearing as scheduled, their case would be dismissed.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws were cited; however, procedural rules of the Employment Tribunal were followed.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The fact that both parties failed to attend the hearing as scheduled was decisive.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If you do not attend your scheduled hearing, your case may be dismissed.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence was mentioned as relevant to the decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but it is advisable to seek legal advice before pursuing an appeal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to consult with a qualified solicitor for guidance on your specific situation.