Case 2301034/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Briggs v Leelajay Capital Limited and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301034/2018
- Decision date
- 26 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mrs L Briggs
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant’s application dated 10 December 2019 for reconsideration of the reserved judgment sent to the parties on 26 November 2019. It held that there was no arguable basis for reconsideration and that the application was an attempt to re-argue matters that had already been considered and rejected. The judge said the tribunal had reached its conclusions by considering the totality of the evidence and the parties’ submissions.
On the specific point raised about section 18(7) of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal said the issue was academic because the claimant’s case about a refusal to show her the sales figures was unlikely to have succeeded in any event as a direct sex discrimination complaint. It found that, on the evidence, it was unlikely that the claimant would have been shown the sales figures if she had been male. The application for reconsideration was therefore refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application dated 10 December 2019 for reconsideration of the reserved judgment was refused on 29 January 2020. The tribunal said there was no arguable basis for reconsideration and that the application was an attempt to re-argue matters already considered and rejected. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 18(7) EqA
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.