Hunsdon Skip Hire Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant did not attend the hearing scheduled for 14 April 2026, claiming to be on holiday. The claimant had previously requested postponement on 19 March 2026 without providing reasons or copying the respondent, contrary to Rule 90, and this request was refused by Regional Employment Judge Foxwell. The tribunal dismissed the claim pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

The claimant failed to attend the hearing and did not provide adequate reasons for his postponement request. He failed to copy the respondent to his postponement request as required by Rule 90, and his request had already been refused by Regional Employment Judge Foxwell on the grounds that no explanation was provided. The tribunal considered it fair in all the circumstances to dismiss the claim following the claimant's non-attendance.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Claimant non-attendance at hearing
• •Postponement request refused by Regional Employment Judge Foxwell
• •Claimant failed to copy respondent and provide explanation for postponement request in breach of Rule 90

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G. Oliver Respondent: Hunsdon Skip Hire Ltd Heard at: Cambridge Employment Tribunal On: 14 April 2026 Before: Employment Judge Hutchings (sitting alone) Appearances For the claimant: did not attend For the respondent: Mr J. Keeble, director JUDGMENT The claim is dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. REASONS 1. The claimant did not attend the hearing. Mindful of Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 I asked the Tribunal clerk to telephone the claimant on the telephone phone number stated on his ET1. The call was answered by a friend of the claimant’s who told the Tribunal that the claimant is on holiday. 2. Having complied with the requirement under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (stated in full below) to make practicable enquiries (by telephone), I started the hearing and considered any relevant information before me in order to determine whether to dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that claimant. “47. If a party fails to attend or to be represented at a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it must consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence” 3. Mr Keeble told the Tribunal the he understood that the claimant had written to the Tribunal requesting this hearing be postponed. There was not a copy of the claimant’s letter on the Tribunal’s paper file. Therefore, I checked the Tribunal’s electronic system. On 13 April 2026 Tribunal administration wrote to the claimant as follows: “I refer to your letter of 19 March 2026. Regional Employment Judge Foxwell has considered your request to postpone the hearing and has refused it…