Case 1303039/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Eltaib v Mr. C Wilday & Others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1303039/2018
- Decision date
- 5 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Eltaib
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 5 October 2020, Employment Judge Meichen reconsidered the tribunal's judgment dated 14 November 2019 on the Tribunal's own initiative under rules 70 and 73, without a hearing. The only change made was to amend the third sentence of paragraph 35 so that it described the claimant as licensed as a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Operator Driver but, at all material times, driving only a private hire vehicle.
The tribunal treated the mistake as a typing error, noted that neither party had asserted the claimant was licensed as an operator, and said the correction was necessary in the interests of justice because the wording might confuse a reader. The respondent agreed to the variation, while the claimant opposed it and argued, among other things, that the EAT was seized of the case and that a different judge should deal with reconsideration; those submissions were rejected. The decision does not determine the merits of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The supplied PDF text is a reconsideration judgment only. It varies one word in paragraph 35 of the earlier judgment and does not set out the underlying merits or separate claim outcomes. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rules 70 and 73
- Rule 72(3)
- Rule 69 slip rule
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.