S S Stoica v Shamal Overseas Shoreditch Ltd: 2227197/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2227197/2024
Between
Silviu Stefan StoicaClaimantShamal Overseas Shoreditch LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge WoodheadFor the Respondent: Ms C Fergusson (instructed by Solicitor) for claimantDate 3 October 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim is dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 (Non-attendance) of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“the Rules”).
REASONS
[2]The Claimant presented his claim form on 9 December 2024 and ticked the boxes for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination (including equal pay), whistleblowing (including dismissal or any other unfair treatment after whistleblowing) and holiday pay. The claim form included only the following particulars:[4]Claim Overview This claim concerns unfair dismissal, procedural irregularities, whistleblowing detriment, disability discrimination, and sex discrimination. I contend that my dismissal was retaliatory, unfair, and based on discriminatory practices.[5]Full Employment Details and Evidence Summary 1 of 7 I was employed as a Senior Night Duty Security Officer at Hart Shoreditch Hotel from December 2021 to October 2024. My employment was terminated under circumstances that were procedurally unfair, retaliatory, and discriminatory. Key evidence includes: 1. Procedural Irregularities: Meetings were consistently scheduled during my sleep hours without adequate notice, disregarding my night-shift schedule and violating ACAS guidelines. Suspension was mishandled, I was asked to leave the room twice so they can come up with more questions together, with management temporarily lifting the suspension to force me to use pre-approved holiday leave. CCTV investigations, critical to my dismissal, were conducted by an unlicensed individual, invalidating the evidence used against me.[8]Tribunal Request I request the tribunal to issue a disclosure order for the respondent to provide: 1. Payroll records showing pay discrepancies between myself and colleagues holding the same title/role. 2. Safety alerts and any correspondence regarding live coals, ash disposal, and other reported issues from the safety alerts, or regarding me. 3. Records of disciplinary investigations, meeting minutes, notes and any correspondence during my suspension. 4. Documentation of celebrations/events for International Women’s Day and the absence of acknowledgment for International Men’s Day […] Remedy Sought — I am seeking the following remedies: 1 . Financial compensation for financial loss and injury to feelings, and all other potential breaches, as detailed in the Schedule of Loss, provided when appropriate and requested. My previous offer is negociable, depending the perks and goodwill. 2. A declaration that my dismissal was unfair and discriminatory, or equivalent goodwill gestures. 2 of 7 3. Procedural uplifts for breaches of ACAS guidelines and bad faith actions. 4. Goodwill gestures, including: Lifetime Hilton Team Member Travel rates. Lifetime Diamond Membership. Neutral Reference 3. The claim form was accepted and, on 20 December 2024 a notice of hearing was issued listing the claim for a preliminary hearing for case management at 10am on 11 June 2025 (“the June Hearing”). 4. On 16 January 2025 the Respondent submitted its response contesting the claims. The Response was accepted and served on the Claimant on 25 March 2025. 5. On 10 June 2025 both parties were sent a letter asking them to submit their bundle for the June Hearing (by email). The Respondent replied the same day, with the Claimant on copy, providing a bundle, case management agenda and draft list of issues. 6. The Claimant failed, without explanation, to attend the June Hearing and EJ Tinnion adjourned the hearing to be reconvened at 14:00 on 3 October 2025. He issued a case management order (sent to the parties on 14 June 2025) which, among other things, said: […] 2. The Claimant must attend the PHCM on 3 October 2025, and is warned that if he does not attend he is at serious risk of all of his claims being struck out at that PHCM if he provides no reasonable excuse for his non-attendance. By 4pm on 27 June 2025, the Claimant must send an email to the Tribunal and Respondent:a. explaining why he did not attend the PHCM on 11 June 2025 and, if he relies upon any health-related matter(s) to explain his nonattendance, must provide copies of any relevant documents supporting what he says; andb. confirming his intention to attend the PHCM on 3 October 2025. […] 5. If an order is not complied with either at all or on time, the Tribunal has powers under the ET Rules of Procedure 2024 to(a) waive or vary the requirement(b) strike out the claim or the response (or part thereof)(c) bar or restrict participation in the proceedings(d) award costs. 3 of 7 6. Anyone affected by an order may apply to the Tribunal in writing to vary, suspend or set it aside. 7. Any application by a party to correct any error or omission in this CMO must be made within 7 days of receipt (taken to be the date the CMO was sent to them). […] the “Orders”. 7. The notice of hearing for this hearing on 3 October 2025 was sent to the parties on 17 June 2025 (by email). 8. On 2 October 2025 the Respondent submitted by email an updated preliminary hearing bundle and index, copied to the Claimant, and confirmed: “we have heard nothing from the Claimant since the last Preliminary Hearing, and have not received an explanation as to why he did not attend the last Preliminary Hearing. The Respondent therefore intends to apply for strike-out of the Claimant's claim on the basis of his continued non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders and that he is not actively pursuing his claim.”[9]Before 3 October 2025 neither the Tribunal nor the Respondent had had any contact from the Claimant.[10]At 10:22 am on 3 October 2025 the Claimant submitted an email to the Tribunal which I will address more fully below but which indicated that the Claimant would not attend the hearing in the afternoon (the “Claimant’s Email”).[11]The Respondent replied at 11:45 as follows (copying the Claimant): “We act for the Respondent in the above claim and write further to the below correspondence received from the Claimant this morning. Given the proximity to the preliminary hearing, we do not propose to comment on the Claimant's email in detail. However, we would note that whilst the Claimant makes reference to not receiving documents by post, all relevant documents have been sent to the Claimant by email. The Claimant has been in receipt of such emails for many months and, in our view, has not provided an adequate explanation as to why he has only recently opened these emails. We also confirm that a copy of the Respondent's ET3 is included in the preliminary hearing bundle, which was emailed to the Tribunal and the Claimant ahead of the hearing listed in June 2025 and ahead of today's re-listed hearing. In light of the short notice provided by the Claimant, please be advised that we object to his request to postpone this afternoon's preliminary hearing. As representatives for the Respondent, we are ready to proceed and would suggest that the above matters be discussed at the hearing this afternoon.” 4 of 7[12]The Claimant failed to attend the hearing on 3 October 2025. At my request the hearing clerk tried to reach the Claimant by phone. The call went straight to voicemail and she left a message for the Claimant asking him to join the hearing so that I could speak to him. The Clerk also sent an email to the Claimant at 14:16 saying: Further to my voicemail of a few minutes ago (in which I left you my direct contact number), Employment Judge Woodhead (who is presiding over the preliminary hearing in your claim now) has asked you to join the hearing via video as he would like to speak to you. This is not a final hearing of your claim, it is a preliminary hearing for case management.[13]The Claimant did not join the hearing or reply to the email. During the hearing I heard submissions from the Respondent and took time to read the Claimant’s email and the documents it attached. I adjourned the hearing at 15:28 to read the documents more carefully before making a decision and explaining to the Respondent why I was not considering strike out under Rule 38 (it was still possible to have a fair final hearing). I explained that I would consider whether to either:13.1 dismiss the Claim under Rule 47 (as the Respondent requested); or13.2 relist the claim for a preliminary hearing for case management.[14]Rule 47 of the Rules provides: Non-attendance 47. If a party fails to attend or to be represented at a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it must consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.[15]I do not give full commentary on all aspects of the Claimant’s Email because much of it was not relevant and was predicated on an apparent misunderstanding of the tribunal process and that this would be a final hearing of his claim (suggesting that the Claimant had not properly read the Tribunal correspondence or guidance that is readily available online).[16]The Claimant’s Email:16.1 was relatively long and had a number of attachments which the Claimant had found the time to compile (including a video, taken late the previous evening or early in the morning, of his email inbox (the “Video”));16.2 attached what appeared to be medical documents associated with treatment of his mother. Those documents were not in English and did not evidence adequately that the Claimant himself was unable to(i) attend the June Hearing,(ii) comply with EJ Tinnion’s order or(iii) attend the hearing today. 5 of 716.3 requested documents that had been provided on a number of occasions to him by email. This included a request for the Respondent’s ET3 notwithstanding that an extract of that response was in a pdf document that the Claimant had compiled and attached to the Claimant’s Email and which he himself referred to in his separate index to that bundle as “20. ET3 response – company denial of all faults and responsibility”;16.4 asked for a short adjournment to replace documents destroyed or discarded during an unlawful eviction. This said nothing about why he was unable to (i) attend the June Hearing, (ii) comply with EJ Tinnion’s order or (iii) attend the hearing today given that the alleged eviction took place in November 2024. It also did not evidence that the Claimant had not been aware of or, had he exercised reasonable diligence, could not have been aware of these requirements given that the Respondent’s and the Tribunal’s email correspondence reached the Claimant (as evidenced by the Video). He gave no proper explanation as to why the correspondence had only ‘recently’ been ‘discovered’.16.5 said that “At the same time my mother’s mental health deteriorated rapidly. She began to display signs of cognitive decline and was the victim of a scam in May 2025 that required me to take emergency practical steps (removing her SIM, securing accounts, etc.).”. Again, this did not adequately explain or evidence why he was unable to (i) attend the June Hearing, (ii) comply with EJ Tinnion’s order or (iii) attend the hearing today.16.6 Said that “from late June–August 2025 I was her [his mother’s] primary carer. She underwent urgent brain investigations and, ultimately, a surgical operation on 21 August 2025 at a private hospital”. The June Hearing was in early/mid June and again this did not adequately explain why he was unable to (i) attend the June Hearing, (ii) comply with EJ Tinnion’s order (even if he did so late) or (iii) attend the hearing today.16.7 Said “I confirm I cannot attend by video today. My mother is being discharged from hospital today and I am her sole immediate carer. I therefore ask that the Tribunal consider a paper hearing or proceed on the written material if it considers there is sufficient evidence — but I remain ready to attend an oral hearing if the Tribunal can schedule it at a later date. The Tribunal may proceed in the absence of a party where fairness permits; I ask only that my exceptional circumstances (unlawful eviction, police involvement and urgent family medical emergency) be taken into account.”. There was no intelligible document in those submitted by the Claimant that evidenced (i) that his mother had been discharged from hospital today (ii) that he was her sole carer (iii) why this prevented him from attending the hearing today (it gave no insight into the burden of his caring responsibilities) or(iv) why he had not let the Tribunal and the Respondent know at an earlier date.16.8 apologised to the Tribunal and to the Respondent for the lateness of this application and explained it by saying it was due “ to the exceptional combination of landlord harassment (including unlawful entry and disposal of my property), the theft/destruction of my evidence, and a sudden and 6 of 7 serious family medical emergency requiring immediate and ongoing care”. The eviction had happened nearly a year ago and I have addressed the matters relating to his mother above.[17]For the avoidance of doubt, the Video (and page 80 of the Claimant’s bundle) showed that the Claimant had received emails from the Tribunal and Respondent, with attachments, on 17, 14, 10 June and 2 January 2025. It did not explain why he had not opened them, read them and taken action on their contents.[18]Taking into account that the Claimant appears to have misunderstood the purpose of the hearing today and the information available to me as set out above, I conclude that it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the claim pursuant to Rule 47 because:18.1 The Claimant had been given notice of the June Hearing and this hearing and clearly received the necessary email correspondence.18.2 The Claimant gave no adequate explanation for not reading and acting on the notice of hearings, orders of EJ Tinnion or the other correspondence from the Tribunal and Respondnent.18.3 The Claimant has now failed to attend two tribunal hearings without adequate explanation. I note that the resources of the Tribunal are scarce and time and resource wasted on this claim is time and resource not available to the thousands of other tribunal service users who want decisions made for them. An individual has an important right to bring a claim in the Tribunal but that right comes with responsibilities.18.4 The Claimant failed to attend the hearing, even to explain why he could not address the matters to be dealt with today, despite being asked to do so on the afternoon of the hearing (in voicemail/email messages) by the Tribunal clerk.[1]The claimant’s application dated 16 October 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 8 October 2025 is refused.[2]I have undertaken preliminary consideration of the claimant's application for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 8 October 2025 in which the Claimant’s unfair dismissal, sex discrimination (including equal pay), whistleblowing (including dismissal or any other unfair treatment after whistleblowing) and holiday pay were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 (for the second time the Claimant did not attend a hearing on 3 October 2025 listed for 14:00 hrs).[3]That application is contained in:3.1 A 10 page email of 16 October 2025;3.2 A bundle of 141 pages with a separate index of two pages.[4]References in square brackets (e.g. [25]) are references to page numbers in the bundle.
The Law
[5]Rules 68 to 71 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (the “Rules”) provide: Reconsideration of judgments Principles 68.—(1) The Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of 1 of 6 a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. (2) A judgment under reconsideration may be confirmed, varied or revoked. (3) If the judgment under reconsideration is revoked the Tribunal may take the decision again. In doing so, the Tribunal is not required to come to the same conclusion. Application for reconsideration 69. Except where it is made in the course of a hearing, an application for reconsideration must be made in writing setting out why reconsideration is necessary and must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the later of—(a) the date on which the written record of the judgment sought to be reconsidered was sent to the parties, or(b) the date that the written reasons were sent, if these were sent separately. Process for reconsideration 70.—(1) The Tribunal must consider any application made under rule 69 (application for reconsideration). (2) If the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application must be refused and the Tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal. (3) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the Tribunal must send a notice to the parties specifying the period by which any written representations in respect of the application must be received by the Tribunal, and seeking the views of the parties on whether the application can be determined without a hearing. The notice may also set out the Tribunal’s provisional views on the application. (4) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the judgment must be reconsidered at a hearing unless the Tribunal considers, having regard to any written representations provided under paragraph (3), that a hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice. (5) If the Tribunal determines the application without a hearing the parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to make further written representations in respect of the application. Reconsideration by the Tribunal on its own initiative 2 of 6 71. Where the Tribunal proposes to reconsider a judgment on its own initiative, it must inform the parties of the reasons why the decision is being reconsidered and the judgment must be reconsidered (as if an application had been made and not refused) in accordance with rule 70(3) to (5) (process for reconsideration).[6]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to appeal on a point of law) a decision of an Employment Tribunal is final. The test is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment (Rule 68).[7]Rule 70(2) empowers me to refuse the application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[8]The importance of finality was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714 in July 2016 where Elias LJ said that: “the discretion to act in the interests of justice is not open-ended; it should be exercised in a principled way, and the earlier case law cannot be ignored. In particular, the courts have emphasised the importance of finality (Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395) which militates against the discretion being exercised too readily; and in Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 384 Mummery J held that the failure of a party's representative to draw attention to a particular argument will not generally justify granting a review.”[9]Similarly in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16 the EAT chaired by Simler P said in paragraph 34 that: “a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to re-litigate matters that have already been litigated, or to reargue matters in a different way or by adopting points previously omitted. There is an underlying public policy principle in all judicial proceedings that there should be finality in litigation, and reconsideration applications are a limited exception to that rule. They are not a means by which to have a second bite at the cherry, nor are they intended to provide parties with the opportunity of a rehearing at which the same evidence and the same arguments can be rehearsed but with different emphasis or additional evidence that was previously available being tendered.”[10]In common with all powers under the Rules, preliminary consideration under Rule 70 (2) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in Rule 3, namely to deal with cases fairly and justly. The Application[11]The email included submissions and the bundle included:11.1 submissions; 3 of 611.2 a witness statement;11.3 a reply to the Respondent’s ET3 (which the Claimant said demonstrated continued engagement and procedural compliance);11.4 a document labelled “4. Medical Discharge Evidence 03.10.2025(Mother’s Neurosurgery & Cognitive Decline) – discharge papers and related documentation substantiating caring responsibilities and reasonable excuse for absence.” [43]. This document was not in English but appeared to show a hospitalisation period of (emphasis added): 29/09/2025 15:38 – 03/10/2025 20:25;11.5 without prejudice documents;11.6 documents that might have been relevant to the case management and final hearing of the claim.[12]The Claimant submitted, amongst other things: 2. Key Reasons for Non-Attendance (Rule 47(2) – Reasonable Excuse) 1. Caring Responsibilities: I was outside the UK providing urgent care for my mother following, and preceding, neurosurgery and cognitive decline (medical evidence attached). 2. Loss of Communication Means: My UK address, items, laptops, phone, and documents were destroyed by an unlawful eviction (police reports CHS 31500/07Nov24; Greenwich Council complaint T106509). 3. Good-Faith Misunderstanding: As a self-represented litigant, I reasonably believed my non-attendance at the June 2025 hearing may have terminated my claim, given Rule 47’s wording, and my limited research at the time due to circumstances beyond my control. 4. Reasons for Non-Attendance 4.0 I contend that the circumstances I have described amount to a reasonable excuse under Rule 47(2). The Tribunal must take into account whether the default was excusable before deciding to dismiss. Conclusion: These circumstances satisfy the “reasonable excuse” standard; absence was involuntary, unavoidable, and outside my control.4.1 I did not wilfully ignore the Tribunal’s instructions. I submit that these constitute a ‘reasonable excuse’ under Rule 47(2). My absence was due to: - Being outside the UK caring for my mother following neurosurgery and cognitive decline (discharge papers attached); - Losing all my personal effects and communication devices due to unlawful actions by my landlord; 4 of 6 - Believing in good faith that I had already lost my claim after the June hearing notice, and et3 ignored all my requests and ACAS said they have to stay impartial.4.2 Given my communication difficulties and reliance on written correspondence for clarity, I respectfully request that all future communications occur in writing. This is in line with ACAS guidance (ACAS Code para 12-15) on reasonable adjustments and the Equality Act 2010, s. 20-21, recognising neurodivergent conditions as protected characteristics where they affect interaction and comprehension.4.3 I rely on s.20(3) Equality Act 2010, which imposes a continuing duty to make reasonable adjustments in any procedure, including Tribunal proceedings (see Rackham v FIAP [2015] EqLR 680). […] 2.7 I discovered on 2 October 2025— when the Respondent served its late bundle — that the case remained active. I worked through the night to prepare documents and immediately contacted the Tribunal. Since the case was dismissed, under rule 47, 3 Oct was the final hearing for my case, until any new decisions. 3.10 I only became aware that my case was still active on 2 October 2025, when the Respondent finally served its late bundle. Upon discovering this, I immediately compiled and submitted my own rushed documentation overnight, under the reasonable belief that the 3 October hearing was the final hearing for dismissal, as per the wording of Rule 47. And since it was dismissed, that hearing was a reasonable misunderstanding given Rule 47 wording. 3.12 I misunderstood the procedural effect of non-attendance at the June hearing— believing (as a litigant in person) that failure to attend would terminate the case. That was a genuine and reasonable mistake given the language of Rule 47 and absence of legal guidance […] Strike-out or dismissal is a draconian remedy [...][13]To the extent relevant, the Claimant largely raised the same matters that he had raised the night before the hearing and, as such, sought to re-open issues on which I had already reached a determination. Such attempts have a reasonable prospect of resulting in the decision being varied or revoked only if the Tribunal has missed something important, or if there is new evidence available which could not reasonably have been put forward at the hearing. That broad principle disposes of almost all the points made by the claimant. However, there are some points he makes which should be addressed specifically.[14]The document at [43] appeared to be new and not available to me on 3 October 2025. The time difference between the UK and Bucharest, where it is understood that the Claimant’s mother was in hospital, is minus two hours 5 of 6 against UK time, Bucharest being to the East. Although it is not explained by the Claimant, the document at [43] therefore suggests that the Claimant’s mother was discharged at 18:25 UK time on 3 October 2025 (the day of the Hearing) albeit it is reasonable to assume that the process may have lasted for perhaps two hours leading up to that point (starting at 16:25 UK time/18:25 in Bucharest). In any event, there is no new evidence to suggest that the Claimant could not have attended the hearing at 14:00 UK time (16:00 in Bucharest). The fact that the Claimant was outside the UK did not preclude him attending the hearing via CVP. The Claimant provided no evidence to support his assertion that he was the sole carer for his mother.[15]The Claimant had clearly not, as he asserted, lost means of communication and this could not have been a reason for his non-attendance. Indeed he sent in a large volume of documents the evening before the hearing (as he himself referenced at 3.10).[16]Given the Tribunal’s correspondence to him there was no reasonable basis on which the Claimant could conclude, self-represented litigant or not, that his nonattendance at the June 2025 hearing may have terminated his claim.
Conclusion
[17]Having considered all the points made by the claimant I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The points of significance were considered and addressed in my original judgment. The application for reconsideration is refused.