Case 6011117/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Jai Kumar v Ncg — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011117/2025
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Jai Kumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing in public on 17 December 2025. The Tribunal delayed the start of the hearing, checked for contact from the claimant, and a Tribunal clerk attempted to call a telephone number found in the bundle, but the call would not connect.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was aware of the hearing because the date had been set at an earlier case management hearing, the case management order had been sent to the parties, the claimant had complied with other orders, the respondent had sent the bundle the previous week, and the hearing link had been sent the previous day. The Tribunal decided not to proceed in the claimant's absence and not to adjourn, and dismissed the claim under Rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Race Discrimination, but the judgment itself is a short Rule 47 dismissal for non-attendance and does not set out the underlying race discrimination allegations. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself is a short Rule 47 dismissal for non-attendance and does not set out the underlying working time allegations. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 30 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 41 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.