Case 3200845/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sylvia Umunna v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200845/2018
- Decision date
- 5 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Members
- Panel members
- Mr J Webb, Ms P Alford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sylvia Umunna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the Claimant's non-attendance at the Cloud Video Platform hearing. Her representative said he had been told by her husband that she was unwell, with faintness and flu-like symptoms, and later reported that she was at Accident and Emergency with possible Covid-19 symptoms. No medical evidence was provided to support an adjournment application.
The Tribunal applied Rule 47 and considered the available information about the absence. It found there was no medical evidence that the Claimant was unfit to attend, regarded aspects of the explanation as unlikely, and noted previous non-attendance or non-compliance and the prejudice to the Respondent from further delay, including lost witnesses. The claims were struck out.
The Respondent applied for costs limited to counsel's brief fee. The Tribunal found that non-attendance without notice was unreasonable conduct of the proceedings and ordered the Claimant to pay the Respondent costs of £4,500 including VAT.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment strikes out the claims under Rule 47 for non-attendance. It does not set out the public interest disclosure allegations or determine their merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claims under Rule 47 for non-attendance. It does not set out the race discrimination allegations or determine their merits. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 47
- General Medical Council v Hayat [2018] EWCA Civ 2796
- Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] EWCA Civ 1040
- Rule 76
- Rule 77
- Rule 75(1)(a)
- Rule 84
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.