Case 2301692/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J J Fasogbon v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301692/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J J Fasogbon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing took place on 6 March 2025 by CVP before Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal decided to continue in his absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 after being satisfied that he had received notice of the hearing, had been told about it on numerous occasions in correspondence, had been copied into the respondent's strike-out correspondence since January 2025 without objecting, and had emailed that he was travelling to Lagos and unable to join at the start.
The only claim was for unfair dismissal. The tribunal struck the claim out for having no reasonable prospect of success because it had vanished upon the claimant's reinstatement by the respondent following his appeal against dismissal, which he had acknowledged in correspondence. The tribunal cited Patel v Folkestone Nursing Home Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1689, and the judgment states that this brought the entire case to an end.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim for having no reasonable prospect of success because it had vanished upon the claimant's reinstatement after appeal. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Patel v Folkestone Nursing Home Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1689
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.