Former employee's claim dismissed after he told tribunal his wife's care was a higher priority
A tribunal dismissed a former employee's unfair dismissal claim after he failed to attend the final hearing, telling staff that caring for his wife after a car crash was more important than the case.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #non-attendance
- #dismissal-under-rule-47
- #carer-responsibilities
- #medical-evidence
- #failure-to-prosecute
Key facts
- The claimant failed to attend the first day of a four-day full merits hearing listed in April 2022.
- The tribunal made several attempts to contact the claimant by phone and email.
- The claimant told tribunal staff that due to his wife's broken neck he was her primary carer and the case was not a priority.
- The claimant had provided medical evidence of his own moderate anxiety and depression and his wife's physical injuries from a car crash.
- The tribunal found that the claimant had chosen not to attend rather than being prevented by his own health.
- The claimant had not provided any medical prognosis as to when he would be able to progress the case.
Timeline
-
Car crash
The claimant and his wife were involved in a high-speed car crash. The claimant suffered lower leg pain and walked with crutches; his wife suffered broken bones in her back and was in a wheelchair.
-
Wife out of cast
Mrs Fitton was out of a cast by the end of June 2022.
-
Wife's physiotherapy ongoing
Mrs Fitton received physiotherapy until at least October 2022.
-
Wife discharged by spinal team
The spinal team at King's hospital discharged Mrs Fitton in January 2023; she no longer required a collar or brace.
-
Claimant diagnosed with anxiety and depression
The claimant was diagnosed by the community mental health team with moderate anxiety and moderate depression. CBT was proposed.
-
Wife discharged from PTSD treatment
Mrs Fitton was discharged from PTSD treatment after not attending appointments.
-
Preliminary hearing missed
The claimant failed to attend a Preliminary Hearing on 31 July 2023. He was ordered to provide medical evidence.
-
Claimant provided medical evidence
The claimant provided images of the car crash and medical records for himself and his wife, but no prognosis.
-
Wife able to go away
Mrs Fitton was able to go away for two weeks in August 2023 and had been able to drive again.
-
Final hearing and dismissal
The claimant failed to attend the final merits hearing. The tribunal dismissed his claims under rule 47.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's claims should be dismissed under rule 47 because he failed to attend the final hearing and had not provided a medical prognosis showing when he could participate.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under rule 47. The key reasons were:
- The claimant failed to attend the final hearing despite the case being listed for over a year.
- He told tribunal staff that caring for his wife was his priority and he could not say when he would progress the case.
- He had not provided a medical prognosis despite being ordered to do so.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you cannot attend a hearing, you must apply for a postponement in advance and provide medical evidence with a clear prognosis.
- Tribunals expect you to prioritise your case or seek alternatives like attending by video or telephone.
- Caring responsibilities may be a valid reason for delay, but you need to show you are taking steps to participate when possible.
This case shows how a tribunal can dismiss a claim when the claimant fails to engage with the process, even when there are genuine personal difficulties. The former employee had been involved in a serious car crash with his wife, who suffered broken bones and needed care. However, the tribunal concluded that he had made a choice not to attend the final hearing rather than being physically or mentally unable to do so.
What the tribunal considered
The judge reviewed the medical evidence provided by the claimant, which showed he had moderate anxiety and depression and his wife had significant physical injuries. But the tribunal noted that the claimant had not provided any prognosis about when he would be able to progress the case. When contacted on the day of the hearing, he told tribunal staff that the case was not a priority and left it to the tribunal to decide whether to strike it out.
The tribunal also pointed out that the claimant could have requested to attend by video or telephone, but had not done so. The case had been listed for over a year, and the claimant had already missed a preliminary hearing.
What the respondent did
Scope it Ltd, the respondent, was represented by counsel and had no contact from the claimant. The tribunal noted that the respondent had not contributed to the delay.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect claimants to actively pursue their claims. If personal circumstances make it difficult, you should provide clear medical evidence, request reasonable adjustments, and keep the tribunal informed. Simply stating that the case is not a priority is likely to lead to dismissal under rule 47.
Similar cases
Claim dismissed after former employee fails to attend hearing and provide medical evidence
An employment tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim after the former employee failed to attend the hearing and did not provide sufficient medical evidence to explain her absence.
Claim dismissed after employee failed to attend preliminary hearing
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after she failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not contact the tribunal. The claim was also presented well out of time.
Constructive dismissal claim thrown out after claimant failed to attend hearing
A former employee who brought constructive unfair dismissal and other claims against Just Trays Ltd had their case dismissed after failing to attend the final hearing or comply with case management orders.
Former employee's claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Dr French Memorial Home Limited was struck out after she failed to attend a hearing and ignored tribunal orders, even after being given a second chance.