Case 6013877/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Moullef v New Life Balance Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6013877/2024
- Decision date
- 28 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Moullef
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Abbott dismissed Mr S Moullef’s claim against New Life Balance Limited after he failed to attend or be represented on 28 July 2026, the first day of a scheduled four-day final hearing at London South Employment Tribunal. The dismissal was made under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal did not determine the underlying allegations.
The claimant had not complied with the directions made at the preliminary hearing on 21 October 2025. Following a warning that his claim might be struck out, he emailed on 8 July 2026 to say that he wished to pursue it. He described personal and financial difficulties affecting his mental health and ability to respond to correspondence, and requested a face-to-face hearing or case management hearing. No supporting evidence accompanied the email. The tribunal found no evidence of further efforts to re-engage before the final hearing.
When the claimant did not arrive, the clerk made unanswered telephone calls and sent an email shortly after 10:20am giving him until 10:45am to explain his absence. He neither responded nor attended by that time. The respondent also confirmed that it had received no contact since 8 July. The judge found that the claimant was not actively pursuing his claim and that dismissal best served the overriding objective. The respondent had complied with disclosure obligations, prepared the hearing bundle and prepared seven witness statements; the judge considered that any other approach would be grossly unfair to it.
The judge found the claimant’s conduct of the proceedings since 21 October 2025 unreasonable and therefore considered a possible preparation time order under Rule 74(2)(a). No order or monetary award was made at this stage. If the respondent wished to seek an order, it had 28 days from the judgment being sent to provide its preparation hours, with the claimant then allowed 21 days to respond. The judge would subsequently decide whether to make an order and assess reasonable and proportionate preparation time. The stated rates of £45 per hour before 6 April 2026 and £46 per hour from that date were potential calculation rates, not awards.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismisses the whole claim under Rule 47 without identifying the underlying causes of action. The listing categories cannot be verified against the reasons. Dismissal was procedural, with no determination of the substantive allegations. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47, Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Overriding objective
- Rule 74(2)(a), 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.