Case 2300249/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Patel v Samedan Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300249/2020
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by video conference on 22 January 2021 before Employment Judge Kelly sitting alone. The claimant did not attend the hearing, which had been listed to start at 10.30am. The tribunal made enquiries about the absence, including telephone calls to the claimant and consideration of the respondent's account that the last correspondence it had received from him was an email dated 29 November 2019. The respondent said it had tried to agree the bundle and agenda with the claimant, but he did not respond.
The tribunal considered whether to dismiss the claim, proceed in the claimant's absence, or adjourn. It noted that the claimant's mobile number was no longer working and the landline appeared no longer in use. The tribunal concluded that the claimant had acted unreasonably in failing to attend without notification or explanation, and that dismissal was consistent with the overriding objective because it dealt with the matter proportionately, avoided delay, and saved expense. The judgment therefore dismissed the claimant's claims on non-attendance. The tribunal also noted that the respondent might, if appropriate, apply for costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying causes of action; it dismisses the claimant's claims as a whole because he did not attend the hearing and gave no notification or explanation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47
- overriding objective
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.