Whistleblower claims dismissed after claimant failed to attend final hearing
An employment tribunal dismissed two whistleblower claims after the claimant repeatedly failed to engage with proceedings and did not attend the final hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Coroner and Claims Officer from 25 June 2018 until 19 January 2023.
- The claimant brought two claims: one for detriment due to protected disclosures and one for automatic/unfair dismissal.
- The claimant failed to attend the final hearing on 21 August 2023 and did not respond to tribunal communications.
- The claimant had previously failed to attend an interim relief hearing and had been debarred from advancing evidence in the second claim.
- The respondent was prepared to proceed but the tribunal dismissed both claims under rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a Coroner and Claims Officer.
-
First claim presented
Claimant brought claim 2501609/2021 alleging detriment for protected disclosures.
-
Second claim presented
Claimant brought claim 2502444/2022 alleging automatic unfair dismissal.
-
First hearing postponed
Final hearing of first claim postponed on claimant's application.
-
Interim relief hearing
Claimant did not attend interim relief hearing; application refused.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant dismissed with effect from this date.
-
Case management orders
Orders made to prepare second claim; claimant failed to comply.
-
Preliminary hearing
Claimant ordered to confirm attendance; no response.
-
Further preliminary hearing
Claimant's failure noted; rule 47 powers outlined.
-
Final hearing and dismissal
Claimant did not attend; both claims dismissed under rule 47.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to dismiss the claimant's claims due to his failure to attend the final hearing, given his repeated non-compliance with tribunal orders and lack of communication.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The claimant had a history of failing to engage: he did not attend an interim relief hearing, failed to comply with case management orders (leading to debarment from advancing evidence in the second claim), and did not respond to orders to confirm his attendance at the final hearing. The tribunal considered the respondent's wish to proceed but concluded that dismissal was appropriate given the claimant's complete non-participation. No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring a tribunal claim, you must attend hearings and comply with orders – failure to do so can result in your claim being dismissed.
- Tribunals have power under rule 47 to dismiss a claim if a party does not attend without good reason, even if the other side is ready to proceed.
- Repeated non-engagement, such as ignoring orders to confirm attendance, makes it more likely the tribunal will strike out your claim.
- If you cannot attend a hearing due to ill health, you should apply for a postponement in advance and provide medical evidence as directed.
This case shows what can happen when a claimant disengages from tribunal proceedings entirely. The claimant, a former Coroner and Claims Officer, brought two claims against North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust alleging detriment and unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. However, after an initial postponement, the claimant stopped participating. He missed an interim relief hearing, failed to comply with case management orders, and did not respond to multiple tribunal directions asking him to confirm his attendance at the final hearing.
What the tribunal considered
Under rule 47, a tribunal can dismiss a claim if a party fails to attend or be represented at a hearing, after considering any available information about the reason for absence. Here, the tribunal noted the claimant's repeated failures to engage: he had been debarred from advancing evidence in his second claim due to non-compliance, and had ignored orders from two separate judges. The respondent was prepared to proceed and wanted a hearing on the merits, but the tribunal concluded that the claimant's complete non-participation made dismissal the appropriate course.
What this means for similar claims
This outcome underscores the importance of staying engaged with the tribunal process. Claimants who bring whistleblower or unfair dismissal claims must attend hearings, comply with orders, and communicate with the tribunal. Ignoring directions or failing to show up can lead to the claim being struck out, regardless of its merits. The tribunal will consider the respondent's position, but persistent non-attendance is likely to result in dismissal. If you are unable to attend due to health reasons, you should follow the tribunal's guidance on applying for a postponement with supporting evidence.
Similar cases
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Claim dismissed after former employee fails to attend third final hearing
An employment tribunal dismissed a former employee's unfair dismissal claim after he failed to attend the final hearing for the third time and had not engaged with the claim for over a year.
Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.