Case 2305935/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Varkey v Costain Group plc UPON APPLICATION under rules 20 and 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 made by an email dated 8 April 2024 to reconsider the — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305935/2023
- Decision date
- 8 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied on 8 April 2024 for reconsideration of a Rule 21 judgment, saying it had not received the claim form or notice of claim and only became aware of the proceedings when it received the judgment. The claimant opposed the application and argued that the respondent had not evidenced non-receipt and that a hearing should take place.
The Employment Judge decided that a hearing was not necessary and revoked the judgment dated 15 March 2024. The Tribunal accepted the response and directed that a preliminary hearing with a three-hour listing would take place.
The Judge concluded that the respondent had acted promptly after receiving the Rule 21 judgment and that the injustice to the respondent if the application were refused outweighed the prejudice to the claimant caused by delay and loss of the Rule 21 judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determines the respondent's application for reconsideration and extension of time, revoking a previous Rule 21 judgment and accepting the response. It does not determine the substantive claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 20 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 70 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 71 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 72 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
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.