Case 2203396/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Commerzbank AG and Others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203396/2020
- Decision date
- 23 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Joffe refused the claimant’s application dated 3 March 2023 for reconsideration of the Judgment and deposit orders sent to the parties on 23 February 2023. The tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
The judge rejected the argument that the outcome of the appeals against the Snelson Tribunal decisions would affect the conclusions reached on strike out. The judgment says that only the ground of appeal that had passed the sift concerned whether an anonymity order should be lifted, not any challenge to the substantive findings of the Snelson Tribunal, so there was no basis for that appeal to alter the strike-out conclusions.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant’s reliance on witness statements said to show that the training modules produced certificates of completion. The judge stated that the reasons for making the deposit order did not depend on whether training certificates existed, and that the strike out / deposit order hearing was not a mini trial. The judgment also records that minor inaccuracies in the original judgment, including a typo and an error in a witness’s name, were regrettable but made no material difference to the decision, and that the judge’s prior involvement in two other claims involving the same respondent made no difference to the outcome here.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application dated 3 March 2023 for reconsideration of the Judgment and deposit orders sent on 23 February 2023; refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.