Former retail worker's unfair dismissal claim thrown out for refusing to attend hearing
A former Primark employee who refused to attend her own unfair dismissal hearing had her claim dismissed under Rule 47. The tribunal also ordered her to pay £400 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 22 February 2022 for gross misconduct (unauthorised absence).
- The claimant refused to attend the hearing on 12 and 13 July 2023, despite multiple requests and warnings.
- The claimant's claim was dismissed under Rule 47 for failure to attend without good reason.
- The respondent was awarded costs of £400 due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed from Primark Stores Ltd for gross misconduct (unauthorised absence).
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Khan held a case management hearing and listed the case for a 7-day hearing in July 2023.
-
First day of hearing
The claimant refused to enter the hearing room, citing a preference for Judge Khan and concerns about respondent's employees. She left the building.
-
Second day of hearing
The claimant did not attend. The tribunal sent warnings but she refused. The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance.
-
Third day of hearing
The claimant attended but the claim had already been dismissed. The respondent made an oral costs application.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The dismissal judgment and case management orders for costs were sent to the parties.
-
Respondent's costs application
The respondent submitted a written costs application seeking £12,910.
-
Costs judgment
Employment Judge Woodhead awarded costs of £400 against the claimant.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to dismiss the claimant's unfair dismissal claim due to her non-attendance at the hearing, and whether to award costs against her for unreasonable conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 for failure to attend the hearing. The claimant refused to enter the hearing room on the first day, citing a preference for a different judge and concerns about respondent's employees. Despite emails and phone calls warning that her claim could be struck out, she did not attend on the second day. The tribunal found no good reason for her absence.
- Claim dismissed under Rule 47
- Costs of £400 awarded against the claimant
Lessons & takeaways
- Attending tribunal hearings is mandatory; refusing to attend without a valid reason will likely result in your claim being dismissed.
- If you have concerns about the judge or witnesses, raise them with the tribunal in advance, not by walking out.
- Ignoring warnings from the tribunal about non-attendance can lead to costs being awarded against you.
What this case shows in practice
This case is a stark reminder that employment tribunals expect claimants to engage fully with the process. The former retail worker had brought an unfair dismissal claim against Primark Stores Ltd after being dismissed for unauthorised absence. However, when the hearing began, she refused to enter the room because she had expected a different judge to hear her case and was concerned that Primark employees were present. Despite tribunal staff asking her multiple times to come in and discuss her concerns, she left the building.
The tribunal went to great lengths to give her another chance. It emailed her that afternoon, explaining the position and warning that her claim could be struck out if she did not attend the next day. She replied early the next morning but still did not attend. The tribunal called her, but she said it was 'over to the tribunal'. After considering postponement or hearing the case in her absence, the judge decided that dismissal under Rule 47 was the only fair option.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have attended the hearing and raised her concerns about the judge and witnesses with the tribunal. If she had a genuine issue, the tribunal might have addressed it. Instead, by refusing to participate, she lost the chance to present her case. The tribunal noted that even if the claim had not been dismissed for non-attendance, it would have been struck out for unreasonable conduct.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals will not tolerate a claimant who simply refuses to attend. The rules give tribunals the power to dismiss claims when a party fails to appear without good reason. It also highlights that unreasonable conduct can lead to a costs order, even if the claimant is representing themselves. The £400 costs award, while modest, reflects the respondent's wasted time and the claimant's unreasonable behaviour.
Similar cases
Claim dismissed after former employee fails to attend preliminary hearing
A former employee's claims of constructive dismissal and discrimination were struck out after she failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not provide a witness statement as directed.
Dismissed for unauthorised absence: race discrimination claims rejected
A former employee of John Lewis plc who was dismissed for unauthorised absence and failure to follow reporting procedures has lost her unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims. The tribunal also ordered her to pay £13,250 in costs.
Claims struck out after employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not attend the preliminary hearing. She was also ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
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.