Case 2215359/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Chowdhury v Rose Property Services Ltd At: Central London Employment Tribunal by CVP on 11 November 2025 — 2025
- Case reference
- 2215359/2023
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
- Panel members
- Ms M Pitfold, Mr J Caroll
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Chowdhury
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Chowdhury, applied for a postponement of the hearing. The tribunal refused that application.
Mr Chowdhury did not attend the CVP hearing on 11 November 2025. Having considered the information he had provided about his absence, Employment Judge Nicolle, sitting with non-legal members Ms M Pitfold and Mr J Caroll, dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Oral reasons were given, and either party could request written reasons within 14 days. No merits findings or remedy award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend; no merits findings were recorded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend; no merits findings were recorded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.