Mr M. Chowdhury v Property Partners Management Limited — 2026

Employment Judge Massarella dismissed Mr M. Chowdhury’s entire case against Property Partners Management Limited under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because he neither attended nor was represented at the hearing on 29 July 2026. His claim form, presented on 27 August 2025, mentioned automatic unfair dismissal, race discrimination, religion or belief discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, wrongful dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. The dismissal was procedural; the tribunal did not determine the merits of those claims. No monetary award was recorded.

The tribunal found that Mr Chowdhury had taken no steps to progress his case since issuing it, had not complied with its orders and had not engaged with the respondent’s attempts to prepare for the hearing. The respondent had sent a draft list of issues, sought further information and requested a schedule of loss, but received no replies. The March preliminary hearing had been vacated because of a lack of judicial resources. Before the July hearing, the respondent sent the bundle again on 27 July and on the hearing morning, without acknowledgment.

The tribunal clerk tried to contact Mr Chowdhury by telephone twice, left a voicemail and sent an email. The clerk then found an email sent the previous day from a different address, in which Mr Chowdhury said he had lost his phone, that his interim phone was unreliable and that he wanted to join by telephone. The clerk sent joining details to that address, but he did not join by telephone or reply before judgment was delivered at 11:30. The judge found that he had notice of the hearing and that reasonable enquiries had been made. The judge regarded his explanation as wholly unsatisfactory and implausible, noting that he had not explained why he could not arrange to use another device, and concluded that he had chosen not to attend.

Applying rule 47 and Roberts v Skelmersdale College, the judge recognised the tribunal’s wide discretion and that dismissal was a severe sanction. The case could not be progressed in Mr Chowdhury’s absence because the claim form required extensive further particulars which he had already had opportunities to provide. The judge rejected a further adjournment because relisting would take many months and there was no confidence that he would attend. The judge also considered the further cost and inconvenience to the respondent, described as a small business, and the demand on tribunal resources.