Case 2201532/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Jegede v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201532/2020
- Decision date
- 25 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Jegede
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's case, or alternatively for a wasted costs order, after the aborted final merits hearing listed for 23-25 June 2021. The immediate issue was the claimant's failure to comply with an order made when the tribunal postponed that hearing: he was required to provide a signed doctor's letter addressing his ability to participate in a video hearing on the June dates.
The claimant had first sought a postponement on 14 May 2021 on the basis of alleged disclosure failures and difficulty obtaining legal advice, but without medical reasons. After a further medical postponement request on 22 June 2021, the tribunal directed him to provide medical evidence. He later produced a GP surgery letter signed by Dr Riley stating there was no reason he could not participate in a video hearing, but the letter did not refer to the relevant hearing dates. The tribunal noted that the claimant then assumed the matter had been dealt with when the case was relisted for November 2021.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that the claimant had failed to provide the medical evidence required by the order and had been on notice that non-compliance could lead to strike out. It rejected the claimant's argument that the November listing meant no further evidence was required, finding that the relisting was not an acceptance that the case was cleared to proceed. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not produced any further medical evidence, despite being aware of the issue for months.
Balancing the interests of both parties, Employment Judge Davidson concluded that strike out was proportionate under Rules 6 and 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment records no substantive merits determination and no monetary award, because the claimant's case was struck out at this preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive cause of action in the extracted text; it records that the claimant's case was struck out for breach of an order to provide medical evidence in support of a postponement application. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 6 and 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.