Case 1600956/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Matheson v Lambert Smith Hampton Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600956/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Matheson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 17 October 2024 for reconsideration of a judgment sent to the parties on 15 October 2024. Employment Judge Jenkins, acting in substitution for Employment Judge Sharp, refused the application.
The tribunal said the application did not address all the reasons why the original judgment had been issued. In particular, it did not explain how the claimant said he could pursue a claim in respect of pay for annual leave while he remained in employment, despite earlier orders and a strike out warning requiring that explanation.
The tribunal concluded that the basis of the annual leave pay claim had still not been advanced and that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The text is a reconsideration judgment refusing to vary or revoke an earlier judgment. It refers only to a claim in respect of pay for annual leave and non-compliance with orders explaining how that claim could be pursued while the claimant remained employed; the underlying judgment is not included. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.