Case 1310846/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Pearson v Terrain Construction Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310846/2020
- Decision date
- 15 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Pearson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent emailed the tribunal on 2 September 2021 seeking reconsideration of the Rule 21 judgment dated 13 July 2021 and sent to the parties on 15 July 2021. The email said that Mrs Rachel Pearson had never been employed by Terrain Construction Group Ltd. Employment Judge Butler noted that the application was significantly out of time, but decided to consider it pragmatically even though no reasons were given for an extension of time and no response form had been filed.
Applying Rules 70 to 73 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, and citing Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust, the judge held that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. He recorded that there was no explanation for the failure to respond to the claim, no explanation for the delay in making the reconsideration application, and that allowing the application would amount to giving the respondent a second bite at the cherry. The judge also noted that the claimant had already sent a schedule of loss and was aware of the claim being brought. The reconsideration application was refused on 10 September 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondent's application for reconsideration of the Rule 21 judgment dated 13 July 2021 was refused; the judge found no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rules 70-73 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 72 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0002/16/DA
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.