Outcome
Individual claims
This is a reconsideration judgment refusing the respondent's application to reconsider an earlier judgment refusing a strike-out. The tribunal found the respondent had a fair opportunity to address relevant matters and there was no procedural unfairness. The substantive claims remain to be determined at a future hearing.
This is a reconsideration judgment refusing the respondent's application to reconsider an earlier judgment refusing a strike-out. The tribunal found the respondent had a fair opportunity to address relevant matters and there was no procedural unfairness. The substantive claims remain to be determined at a future hearing.
This is a reconsideration judgment refusing the respondent's application to reconsider an earlier judgment refusing a strike-out. The tribunal found the respondent had a fair opportunity to address relevant matters and there was no procedural unfairness. The substantive claims remain to be determined at a future hearing.
This is a reconsideration judgment refusing the respondent's application to reconsider an earlier judgment refusing a strike-out. The tribunal found the respondent had a fair opportunity to address relevant matters and there was no procedural unfairness. The substantive claims remain to be determined at a future hearing.
Facts
The claimant, who stated he could not read or write English, brought claims of race and religious belief discrimination, harassment related to religious belief, and unlawful deduction from wages. At a scheduled full merits hearing in July 2024, the respondent applied to strike out the claim and the claimant applied to adjourn. The tribunal refused the strike-out and granted an adjournment with an unless order. The respondent applied for reconsideration arguing procedural unfairness in how the tribunal handled the claimant's literacy issues and the adjournment decision.
Decision
Employment Judge Freshwater refused the respondent's reconsideration application on the basis there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The tribunal found no procedural unfairness: both parties had full opportunity to make submissions, the respondent chose not to cross-examine the claimant on his literacy or understanding, and the tribunal properly exercised its discretion to adjourn rather than strike out as a less draconian measure.
Practical note
Tribunals have inherent power to adjourn proceedings on their own initiative, and refusing a strike-out in favour of an adjournment with an unless order is a proper exercise of judicial discretion where it represents a less draconian alternative, particularly for unrepresented litigants.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304159/2022
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Gasrec Limited
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No