Case 1801494/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Hewitt v The Potting Shed Spa Limited UPON APPLICATION by the Respondent made by letter dated 2 April 2020 to reconsider the — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801494/2020
- Decision date
- 8 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Hewitt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal considered the respondent's application, made by letter dated 2 April 2020, to reconsider the Rule 21 judgment under rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The matter was dealt with without a hearing under rule 70.
The tribunal revoked the judgment. Its reason was that the Rule 21 judgment had been issued in error before the time had expired for the respondent to submit a response. The judgment text does not contain any determination of the underlying merits of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records only a reconsideration application and states that the earlier Rule 21 judgment was revoked because it was issued in error before time had expired for the respondent to submit a response. It does not determine the merits of the underlying claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 71 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 70 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.