The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claims for discrimination, harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment and unfair dismissal part of the way through the final hearing because he indicated that he was not prepared to give evidence or otherwise continue to participate in the proceedings, after the Tribunal ruled against his application to strike out the Respondent’s response and rejected his application for an adjournment to enable him to immediately appeal that decision.
It was agreed that the Claimant had not withdrawn his claims. The Tribunal’s decision was, in effect, a judgment striking out the claims on the basis that they no longer had any reasonable prospect of success, pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a), Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. It was agreed that the claims could not succeed without the Claimant giving evidence in support of them.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting that in the particular circumstances the Claimant had not been deprived of a fair hearing and had been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations before his claims were struck out. He was warned by the Tribunal of the consequences if he continued to refuse to participate; he was represented by an experienced consultant; a short cooling off period was twice offered by the Tribunal and twice rejected by the Claimant and his representative; and there was nothing to indicate to the Tribunal at the time that offering a longer cooling off period would have been likely to have a significant impact.
The Employment Tribunal’s Written Reasons, though succinct, sufficiently expressed the reasons for its decision to dismiss the claims. Compliance with the requirements of Rule 62(5) had to be assessed by reference to the nature of the judgment being given.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0204 – 19 – 0701
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650914