Case 3314980/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mykoo v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314980/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mykoo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 28 March 2024 and had last contacted the tribunal on 29 January 2024 by email seeking postponement of the earlier hearing listed for 5 February 2024. The tribunal recorded that the orders and hearing details were sent to the email address used on the claim form, and that the clerk telephoned the claimant at 10.00am when he did not appear.
The hearing was briefly delayed while counsel resolved an audio issue and was then adjourned until 10.20am, but the claimant did not join the video hearing, return the voicemail, or contact the tribunal or the respondent. Employment Judge Quill considered that a postponement was not appropriate, noted that there were no further practicable enquiries to make, and dismissed the entire claim under Rule 47. The judge also recorded that any time-limit issue could not fairly be determined in the claimant's absence and that no factual findings were made on that point.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismisses the entire claim under Rule 47 for non-attendance and does not set out any merits findings; the claim type is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment dismisses the entire claim under Rule 47 for non-attendance and does not set out any merits findings; the claim type is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment dismisses the entire claim under Rule 47 for non-attendance and does not set out any merits findings; the claim type is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the entire claim under Rule 47 for non-attendance and does not set out any merits findings; the claim type is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47
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.