Case 1803185/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Armstrong v 2 Sisters Food Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803185/2021
- Decision date
- 5 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, holiday pay and travel expenses. Those complaints had been considered at a hearing on 26 January, 27 January and 17 March 2022, and a reserved judgment with reasons was sent to the parties on 5 May 2022.
The claimant’s email of 16 May 2022 was treated as an application for reconsideration. The Tribunal found that the application was made in time and waived the claimant’s failure to copy it to the respondent’s solicitor, so it had jurisdiction to consider the application.
The Tribunal refused reconsideration. It was satisfied that the original hearing documents, evidence, submissions and the claimant’s explanation of his complaints had been fully considered. The two holiday forms produced with the reconsideration application could have been presented at the original hearing, and the Tribunal found that reconsideration was not an opportunity to re-argue the case or have a second opportunity to put forward evidence. It concluded there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment, or any part of it, being varied or revoked.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal and that a reserved judgment was sent on 5 May 2022, but this reconsideration judgment does not state the outcome of the underlying unfair dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a claim for holiday pay and refers to holiday forms produced with the reconsideration application, but it does not state the outcome of the underlying holiday pay claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records a claim for travel expenses. The precise legal classification and the outcome of that underlying claim are not stated in this reconsideration judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 70 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rules 71 to 73 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- interests of justice
- overriding objective
- natural justice and fairness
- Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11 EAT
- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
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.