Case 3200458/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Salami v Barclays Bank UK plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200458/2024
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Salami
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend the Final Hearing on 25 February 2025 after his postponement application was refused. The Tribunal considered available information about the reason for his absence, including the wording of the postponement application, attempts to contact him by telephone, and the delay to the start of the hearing.
The Respondent submitted that the claim should be dismissed rather than heard in the Claimant's absence. The Tribunal noted that some allegations remained unclear despite earlier orders for further particulars, and that the Claimant's witness statement did not provide factual material addressing the complaints or supporting an inference of race or sex discrimination.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and the overriding objective, the Tribunal decided that the appropriate consequence of the Claimant's absence was to dismiss the claim for non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states there were allegations of race discrimination and dismisses the claim for non-attendance under Rule 47, without adjudicating the factual merits of each allegation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states there were allegations of sex discrimination and dismisses the claim for non-attendance under Rule 47, without adjudicating the factual merits of each allegation. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- 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.