Case 1604326/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Jones v Legends Leisure Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1604326/2024
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 1 April 2025. Employment Judge Brace refused the application on 13 June 2025, applying Rule 68 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and the Rule 70(2) test of whether there was any reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. The judge also cited the finality principles explained in Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor and Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust.
The reasons state that the respondent's stated inability to attend the remote final hearing had already been taken into account before and again at the outset of the hearing when the tribunal decided to proceed in the respondent's absence. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had received £1,000 from the respondent and that this had been accepted as an ex gratia payment without condition. The reconsideration application was refused, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 16 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment is a reconsideration decision only. It refuses the respondent's application dated 11 April 2025 against the judgment sent on 1 April 2025, and it does not restate the substantive merits findings of the original judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 68 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 70(2) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714
- Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16
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.