Unfair dismissal claim dismissed after claimant failed to attend final hearing
A former British Airways employee had his unfair dismissal claim thrown out after he failed to attend the final hearing, citing a new job and personal issues. The tribunal also refused the airline's application for costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #non-attendance
- #rule-47-dismissal
- #costs-refused
- #litigant-in-person
- #personal-circumstances
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 1 April 2014 to 17 October 2020.
- He brought a claim for unfair dismissal on 7 December 2020.
- The final hearing was scheduled for 14 June 2023 after a previous postponement.
- The claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
- The tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 due to the claimant's non-attendance.
- The respondent's subsequent application for costs was refused.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for British Airways plc.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed from his employment.
-
Early conciliation started
Early conciliation began between the parties.
-
Early conciliation ended
Early conciliation concluded.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim for unfair dismissal to the tribunal.
-
Hearing postponed
The original hearing dates of 11-13 July 2022 were postponed due to judicial resourcing reasons.
-
New hearing dates notified
The parties were notified of the rescheduled hearing dates of 14-16 June 2023.
-
Final hearing and dismissal
The claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47.
-
Costs application
The respondent applied for costs against the claimant.
-
Costs judgment
The tribunal refused the respondent's costs application.
The legal issue
Whether the tribunal should dismiss the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under rule 47 due to his non-attendance at the final hearing, and whether costs should be awarded against him.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because he failed to attend the final hearing without a valid reason.
The claimant, who had six years' service with British Airways, was dismissed in October 2020. The final hearing was scheduled for June 2023 after a previous postponement. On the day, the claimant told the tribunal clerk he was at work and had forgotten about the hearing due to personal issues. The tribunal considered postponing but decided it would not be fair to the respondent, who had witnesses and representatives ready.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed. The respondent's subsequent application for costs was refused because the claimant's conduct did not meet the threshold for a costs order.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you bring a tribunal claim, you must attend all hearings or apply for a postponement in advance with good reasons.
- Personal circumstances and a new job are unlikely to excuse non-attendance if you were aware of the hearing date.
- Tribunals will consider fairness to both parties when deciding whether to postpone a hearing.
- Costs are rarely awarded against a litigant in person unless their conduct is unreasonable or vexatious.
This case shows the importance of attending tribunal hearings or formally requesting a postponement. The former employee had brought an unfair dismissal claim against British Airways, but on the day of the final hearing he was at work and said the hearing had 'gone out of his mind' due to personal issues.
What the tribunal considered
The judge noted that the hearing had been in the diary for 11 months and that the respondent's solicitor had contacted the claimant shortly before with case documents. The claimant did not reply. When deciding whether to dismiss the claim or postpone, the tribunal weighed the claimant's reasons against the impact on the respondent, who had three witnesses and legal representatives ready. Postponing would likely mean a further delay of many months, causing evidential difficulties and unfairness to British Airways.
Why costs were refused
After the claim was dismissed, British Airways applied for costs, arguing the claimant's non-attendance wasted its time and money. However, the tribunal refused, finding that the claimant's conduct—while inconvenient—did not meet the legal test of being 'unreasonable' or 'vexatious'. This is a reminder that costs orders against individuals are rare, especially where there is no evidence of malice or deliberate disruption.
What this means for similar claims
Claimants should treat hearing dates as fixed and non-negotiable unless they have a compelling reason and apply for a change well in advance. The tribunal's decision also underscores that personal difficulties, while unfortunate, will not usually justify non-attendance if the claimant was aware of the date. For employers, the case illustrates that even a strong costs application may fail if the claimant's behaviour does not cross the high threshold set by the rules.
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.
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.
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.
Protective award claim dismissed: claimant failed to attend hearing and was out of time
A former employee's claim for a protective award after redundancy has been dismissed by the Nottingham tribunal because it was brought well after the three-month time limit and the claimant did not attend the hearing.