Claimant v Shamal Overseas Shoreditch Ltd

Outcome

Facts

The claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, equal pay, whistleblowing and holiday pay. He failed to attend a hearing on 3 October 2025 (for the second time, having also failed to attend in June 2025), and his claims were dismissed under Rule 47. He applied for reconsideration on 16 October 2025, claiming he was in Romania caring for his mother following neurosurgery, had lost communication means due to an unlawful eviction, and believed his claim had already been terminated. He submitted medical discharge papers showing his mother was discharged at 18:25 UK time on the day of the hearing.

Decision

Employment Judge Woodhead refused the reconsideration application on preliminary consideration under Rule 70(2), finding no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judge found the claimant had not lost means of communication (as evidenced by his submission of documents the night before), the discharge timing did not prevent attendance at 14:00, there was no evidence he was sole carer, and he had no reasonable basis to believe his claim had been terminated given tribunal correspondence.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited