Not present or represented For the v Respondent — 2026

Mr K Nadarajah brought claims against Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited in two ET1 claim forms. One concerned disciplinary action arising from his wearing a cloth bracelet while working as a Food Services Assistant at the respondent’s Ruislip store. The tribunal recorded that the claim form did not identify the religion concerned or explain how the bracelet related to that religion. The other claim concerned his dismissal, which the respondent said followed a failure to dispose of out-of-date food.

The claimant did not attend the in-person preliminary hearing on 10 June 2026. At 13:10 that day he emailed requesting an adjournment, stating that he had initially understood the hearing would be online and had received short notice of the requirement to attend in person. The tribunal clerk attempted unsuccessfully to contact him by telephone, and the tribunal waited until 14:15 before starting the hearing in his absence. The tribunal found that letters dated 23 December 2025 had notified the parties that the hearing would take place in person at Watford.

Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the tribunal considered the available information and the practicable enquiries made about the claimant’s absence. It found that the stated reason did not bear scrutiny because notice of the in-person hearing had been given approximately five and a half months earlier, and that there was no good reason for the claimant not to attend. The tribunal concluded that dismissal was in the interests of justice and dismissed the claims without determining their substantive merits. The judgment records no monetary award.