Case 1804688/2012 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Tahirkheli, now known as Ms L Dean-Verity v Khan Solicitors Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804688/2012
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Tahirkheli, now known as Ms L Dean-Verity
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the claimant's application for an extension of time to seek reconsideration of a judgment sent to the parties on 7 April 2014. The application for reconsideration was made on 21 February 2020, nearly six years out of time, and the Tribunal considered whether extending time would accord with the overriding objective.
The Tribunal found there were no good and cogent reasons for the substantial delay. It noted that the claimant had been informed about time limits, was a lawyer and practising barrister, and had waited two years after receiving the documents she said supported reconsideration before making the application.
The Tribunal did not accept that refusing an extension would cause substantial prejudice to the claimant, and found that allowing the application out of time would significantly prejudice the respondent. It refused the extension of time, with the result that the reconsideration application was also refused as out of time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refused an extension of time and refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of the 21 March 2014 judgment as out of time. It did not determine the underlying unfair dismissal claim on its merits in this decision. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 70 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 71 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 5 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 2 overriding objective
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.