Hallo Healthcare Group (Aurelius)

Case Summary

The claimant failed to attend the substantive hearing on 26 March 2026, stating his intention to challenge a privacy order refusal at the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal proceeded in the claimant's absence and struck out his claims, finding they had no reasonable prospects of success and that the claimant's conduct of proceedings had been scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of £18,750.

The claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospects of success and the claimant's conduct of the proceedings was scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious. The claimant failed to attend the hearing and sought a postponement to pursue a challenge to a privacy order decision at the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which the tribunal rejected.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Claimant failure to attend hearing
• •Application for postponement
• •Strike out of claims
• •Vexatious conduct

Case No. 6016317/2024 JUDGMENT 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr. M. RAZWAN Respondent: HALLO HEALTHCARE GROUP (AURELIUS) HELD AT: BIRMINGHAM, MIDLANDS WEST EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL ON: 26 MARCH 2026 BEFORE: EMPLOYMENT JUDGE MANLEY REPRESENTATION For the claimant: No appearance For the respondent: Mr. Webster, counsel JUDGMENT UPON the failure of the Claimant to attend the hearing, for which notice was given during the hearing before Employment Judge Power on 20 & 21 October 2025 and subsequently in writing; AND UPON the Tribunal making enquiries with the Claimant who informed the Tribunal clerk that he was not planning to attend due to his intention to challenge the most recent refusal of his application for a privacy order in the Employment Appeals Tribunal and accordingly asked for this hearing to be postponed; AND UPON the Tribunal deciding to proceed with the hearing in absence of the Claimant, pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, and giving reasons for doing so at the hearing; The judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1. The Claimant’s application for a postponement is dismissed. Case No. 6016317/2024 JUDGMENT 2 2. The Claimant’s claims are struck out pursuant to rule 38 (1) (a) and/or (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, on the grounds that they have no reasonable prospects of success and the manner in which the Claimant has conducted the proceedings has been scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious. 3. The Claimant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of the proceedings, summarily assessed in the sum of £18,750 pursuant to rule 74 (2) (a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Approved by: Employment Judge Manley 27 March 2026 Note Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written reques…