Case 2303496/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Shunmoogum v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303496/2019
- Decision date
- 24 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Shunmoogum
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Kelly, sitting alone at London South by video conference on 27 October 2020, dismissed the claimant's claims on his non-attendance. The judgment records no appearance by the claimant and an appearance by Ms L Sellen, a solicitor, for St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
The Tribunal considered rule 47 and whether to dismiss the claim, proceed in the claimant's absence, or adjourn. It made enquiries about the claimant's absence, checked that notice of hearing had been sent on 24 August 2020 to the claimant's email address from the claim form, and arranged calls to the claimant's number and to the representative named on the claim form.
The Tribunal was told by a relative that the claimant was in Mauritius and might not know about the hearing if he was not checking emails regularly. The named representative said they no longer represented the claimant and understood him to be representing himself. The respondent had not heard from the claimant since he had asked for postponement of a previously listed July hearing because he would be abroad.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in failing to attend and had ample notice of the hearing. It stated that, if he was unable to attend, he could have applied for an adjournment as he had previously. The Tribunal considered dismissal to be in line with the overriding objective, including proportionality, avoiding delay and saving expense. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed on his non-attendance; the judgment text does not set out the substantive particulars of the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed on his non-attendance; the judgment text does not set out the substantive particulars of the age discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were dismissed on his non-attendance; the judgment text does not set out the substantive particulars of the disability discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.