Case 2302656/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Bordas v Thames Clippers Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302656/2024
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Bordas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment concerns the claimant's application dated 21 May 2025 for reconsideration of the notice confirming dismissal sent the same day. Judge Andrews applied rule 68 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, noting that reconsideration is limited by the need for finality in litigation and that rule 70(2) requires refusal where there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.
The background was a case management preliminary hearing before Judge Leith on 18 February 2025 at which the claimant did not attend. An order sent on 19 February 2025 required her to write to the tribunal and the respondent by 4.00 pm on 4 March 2025 explaining her non-attendance and enclosing relevant evidence. The order stated in bold that if she did not comply, her claim would stand as struck out without further order. By 1 May 2025 the tribunal had received no contact from her, so the notice confirming dismissal of claim was sent on 21 May 2025.
The claimant said reconsideration was in the interests of justice, relying in part on an assertion that the respondent had not replied to her request for a personal email address for communication and disclosure. The tribunal held that this did not prevent compliance because she had the respondent's legal@thamesclippers.com email address, which she in fact used when copying her reconsideration application. The tribunal also said that, even if she had not wished to use that address, she could have sent the required information directly to the tribunal and explained why she could not copy it to the respondent.
Judge Andrews concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the dismissal being varied or revoked and that it was not in the interests of justice for the application to proceed. The tribunal also took account of the impact on the respondent and the tribunal system of material non-compliance with orders. The application for reconsideration was therefore refused, and the underlying strike out/dismissal remained in place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal refused the claimant's application dated 21 May 2025 for reconsideration of the notice confirming dismissal. The application concerned a prior order that the claim would stand struck out if the claimant did not comply. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 68 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- rule 70(2) Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- interests of justice
- finality in litigation
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.