Case 1304518/2023 · Employment Tribunal
MR JASPAN MUDEKUNYE v Wye Valley NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304518/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hena Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR JASPAN MUDEKUNYE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was listed for a preliminary hearing on 11 September 2024 after the final hearing had been postponed on 26 March 2024 because of the claimant’s non-compliance. The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing, and the tribunal recorded that it had attempted to contact him without success. The respondent attended by solicitor and representative.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not actively pursued the claim and had submitted no evidence. It noted that on 6 March 2024 the claimant asked that the case not be struck out and said he was abroad, but he did not respond to directions requiring him to explain his non-compliance, provide evidence of his mother’s illness, or say when he intended to return to the UK. The tribunal also found that he had not engaged with the proceedings since November 2023 and had continued to extend the date on which he said he would return to the UK.
On those facts, the tribunal struck out the claim on the bases that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant had been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious; that the claim had not been actively pursued; and that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing because the claimant refused to engage with the respondent or the tribunal so that his application could be determined. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not made any written submissions in response to the respondent’s application despite having notice of the hearing and the applications it would deal with.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action, but it records that the claimant’s claim was struck out at a preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.