Case 2300586/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Soltanimohammadi v AM Construction and Engineering Limited UPON APPLICATION made by the Claimant by email dated 5 January 2024 to reconsider the — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300586/2023
- Decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Soltanimohammadi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant applied for reconsideration of a judgment dated 6 November 2023. The Tribunal noted that the claim had originally been accepted, but at the November hearing it identified a jurisdiction issue because the employment ended on 9 October 2022, ACAS was approached on 31 January 2023, and the claim was submitted on 7 February 2023.
The Tribunal considered the Claimant's points about administrative difficulties, health, stress, language, lack of legal representation, and the role of Citizens Advice. It concluded that none of those matters affected the original decision that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to be submitted in time, and that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reconsideration application was refused. The judgment records that the original decision found the unfair dismissal claim out of time, with the Tribunal lacking jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rules 70-73 of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- rule 72(1)
- reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 ICR 53, CA
- Riley v Tesco Stores 1980 ICR 323 CA
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.