Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

CASE REF: 7356/17

 

 

 

CLAIMANT: Mateusz Pajor

 

 

RESPONDENT: Millvale Enterprises UK Ltd

 

 

 

DECISION

The claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to paragraph (5) of rules 27 of the Industrial Tribunals Rules.

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Buggy

Appearances:

The claimant was not present and was not represented.

The respondent was represented by Mr R Cushley, Barrister-at-Law.

REASONS

 

1. I announced my decision on the first day of the hearing. At the same time, I gave brief oral reasons for that decision.

 

2. What follows is by way of summary only.

 

3. The case had been listed to take place over a period of two days, starting on 18 June at 10.00 am.

 

4. On that morning, at 9.22 am, the claimant's representative, Mr Marcin Dziubek, sent an email to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals on behalf of the claimant. That email was on the following terms:

 

"I would like to inform that due to unforeseen circumstances
Mr Mateusz Pajor will not be able to attend for today's hearing. He wished to apologise for this situation and inform that he will attend for tomorrow's hearing. "

 

5. At 9.51 am, on my instructions, a clerk sent an email to Mr Dziubek, in the following terms:

 

"An [employment judge] has directed that I enquire as to why Mr Pajor is unable to attend for today's hearing?"

 

No reply to that email was ever received.

 

6. If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the time and place fixed for a main hearing, a tribunal/employment judge has the discretion to: (1) dismiss the proceedings for that reason, (2) to dispose of the proceedings in the absence of the missing party, or (3) to adjourn the hearing.

 

7. I decided to dismiss the proceedings.

 

8. In so deciding, I took full account of all the information in the possession of the Office of the Tribunals which had been made available to it by the parties.

 

9. In deciding to dismiss the proceedings, as distinct from adjourning them, I took account of the following matters. First, all the respondent's witnesses were there, and along with its solicitor and its counsel; and an interpreter had been booked for the hearing, at public expense. Secondly, on that day (on 18 June), despite having caused appropriate enquiries to be made, I was unaware of any good reason for the claimant's absence on that date.

 

10. In deciding to dismiss the proceedings, as distinct from disposing of the proceedings in the absence of the claimant, I took account of the fact that, in respect of the claimant's remaining claims, the onus of proof was upon him.

 

 

 

 

Employment Judge:

 

 

Date and place of hearing: 18 June 2018, Belfast.

 

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: