Case 1302889/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Mojzisova v Aleksandra Pluta UPON APPLICATION by the Claimant made by an email dated 27 October 2022 (supplemented by a further email dated 31 October 2022) to reconsider the — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302889/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented her claim on 11 June 2022. After repeated directions from 27 June, 5 July, 10 August, 31 August and 22 September 2022 asking her to identify the complaints she wished to pursue, the tribunal struck the claim out on 26 October 2022 because it had not been actively pursued. In her reconsideration emails of 27 and 31 October 2022, the claimant said she had anxiety disorder and provided doctors' notes and a Jubilee Health Centre note.
Employment Judge Faulkner refused reconsideration on 6 April 2023 under rule 72(1), holding that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judge noted that the medical evidence covered only a small part of the June to October period, that the claimant still had not provided the requested complaint details, and that her apparent complaint was that sums due under an ACAS COT3 settlement agreement in an earlier claim had not been paid, which did not disclose a claim within the tribunal's jurisdiction; the judgment said she could consider civil enforcement of the agreement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for reconsideration refused under rule 72; the underlying claim had previously been struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 72(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
- interests of justice
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.