Case 2201832/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Vassallo 1st v Mizuho International plc 2nd Respondent: Mizuho Bank Ltd UPON APPLICATION made by email dated 04 January 2024 to reconsider the decision dated 11 September 2023 under — 2024
- Case reference
- 2201832/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 04 January 2024 for reconsideration of a decision dated 11 September 2023. The tribunal stated that the earlier decision had refused permission to amend the claim to add claims of whistleblowing and indirect sex discrimination, and that it had not disposed of the claims originally pleaded.
The tribunal considered the application under the reconsideration rules and concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of the decision being varied or revoked. It also declined, in the alternative, to vary, suspend or set aside the earlier order under rule 29. The application for reconsideration was refused.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of an earlier refusal to amend the claim to add whistleblowing. It did not determine the underlying pleaded claims on their merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of an earlier refusal to amend the claim to add indirect sex discrimination. It did not determine the underlying pleaded claims on their merits. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 70 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 72 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 29 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.