Case 6019885/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Ekundayo v Jess Murray — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019885/2024
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Ekundayo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend a remote preliminary hearing on 23 May 2025. The tribunal treated his comments to the clerk as an implied postponement application, refused that application after considering the Presidential Guidance on postponement and the overriding objective, and found that he had notice of the hearing and had not shown good reason for not attending.
The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It considered that case management could not usefully proceed in the claimant's absence because the claims raised issues about the correct respondent, employment or contractual status, qualifying service, and the basis of the race discrimination claim.
The tribunal stated that the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims had no real prospect of success against the named respondent, and that the direct race discrimination claim had little reasonable prospect of success on the written material. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The tribunal also noted apparent issues including the named individual respondent, lack of two years' qualifying service, and no real prospect of success against the named respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment refers to a wrongful dismissal notice pay claim and states it had no real prospect of success against the named respondent because there was no proper pleaded basis that the individual had contracted with the claimant. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment identifies a direct race discrimination claim and states that, at minimum, a deposit order would likely have been made because the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The claim was ultimately struck out under rule 47 after non-attendance. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Presidential Guidance on postponement of a hearing
- overriding objective
- s.41 Equality Act 2010
- s.109 Equality Act 2010
- s.110 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] EWCA Civ 33
- Wong v Igen Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 142
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- London Borough of Islington v Ladele [2009] IRLR 154 (EAT)
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.