Case 1803142/2013 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Meese v Rotherham College of Arts & Technology — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803142/2013
- Decision date
- 30 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Meese
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 30 September 2019 Employment Judge Little Date refused the claimant's applications dated 18 July 2019 and 18 August 2019 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 09 September 2015. The judge held that the applications were almost four years outside the 14-day time limit for reconsideration and that there was no basis for extending time under rule 5 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The claimant explained the delay by reference to crises in her life after the February 2015 merits hearing, but the judgment records that she had nevertheless been able to bring later victimisation proceedings. On that basis, the judge found she could also have made a timely reconsideration application, and refused an extension of time. The respondent was invited to comment but did not do so.
The judge also found that the applications had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment says the interests of justice require finality, and that the claimant's attempt to revisit the merits judgment, and in substance the costs judgment made on 21 August 2015, four years later was an abuse of process.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Applications dated 18 July 2019 and 18 August 2019 for reconsideration of the judgment sent on 09 September 2015 were refused as substantially out of time and with no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 72
- rule 5 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- interests of justice
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.