Claim dismissed Employment Tribunal · 31 October 2022

Claim dismissed after last-minute withdrawal and no-show at hearing

A former employee who withdrew her claim the day before the hearing and failed to attend had her case dismissed and was ordered to pay £246 in preparation time costs.

1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimant notified the respondent on 4 April 2022 that she would not proceed with her claim.
  • The claimant failed to attend the full merits hearing on 5 April 2022.
  • The tribunal dismissed the claims under Rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance.
  • The respondent applied for a preparation time order, which was granted in the sum of £246.
  • The claimant did not provide any explanation for her conduct or financial circumstances.

Timeline

  1. Initial notice of hearing sent

    The tribunal sent the initial notice of hearing to both parties.

  2. Respondent filed ET3

    The respondent submitted its response to the claim.

  3. Reminder of hearing sent

    The tribunal sent a reminder of the hearing and requested confirmation of readiness.

  4. Claimant confirmed intention to proceed

    The claimant replied to the respondent's email stating 'Yes, please proceed.'

  5. Claimant withdrew from proceedings

    The claimant emailed the respondent at 16:48 stating she would not proceed, but did not inform the tribunal.

  6. Full merits hearing

    The claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal dismissed all claims under Rule 47.

  7. Preparation time order granted

    The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £246 for preparation time due to unreasonable conduct.

The outcome

The tribunal dismissed the claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing.

The claimant had emailed the respondent the day before to say she would not proceed, but did not inform the tribunal. She did not respond to attempts to contact her on the day.

The respondent applied for a preparation time order, which was granted. The tribunal found the claimant's conduct unreasonable, and she provided no explanation or financial circumstances.

Compensation:

  • Preparation time order: £246

Lessons & takeaways

  • If you decide not to proceed with a claim, inform the tribunal directly and in good time, not just the other side.
  • Failing to attend a hearing without a valid reason can lead to automatic dismissal of your claim.
  • Late withdrawal or non-attendance can result in a preparation time order, requiring you to pay the other side's costs.
  • Always respond to tribunal communications and provide requested information, or risk adverse orders.

This case shows the serious consequences of withdrawing from a tribunal claim at the last minute and failing to attend the hearing. The former employee emailed the respondent the day before the full merits hearing to say she would not proceed, but did not copy the tribunal. On the day, she did not answer calls or emails from the tribunal clerk. As a result, the judge dismissed all her claims under Rule 47, which allows the tribunal to strike out a case when a party fails to attend.

What the respondent did right

The respondent, GeoAmey PECS Limited, acted promptly by applying for a preparation time order. The tribunal granted it, ordering the claimant to pay £246 to cover the time the respondent's representative spent preparing for the hearing. The judge noted that the claimant had confirmed she intended to proceed just a week earlier, then withdrew without explanation and failed to notify the tribunal. This was unreasonable conduct.

Why this matters

For anyone considering bringing an employment claim, this case is a reminder that tribunals take procedural rules seriously. Withdrawing a claim is not as simple as telling the other side — you must formally notify the tribunal. And if you decide not to attend, you risk not only losing your case but also being ordered to pay the other side's costs. The preparation time order here was modest, but it could have been much higher if the respondent had spent more time preparing.

Similar cases