Case 2307480/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Vara Lakshmi Julakanti v Nationwide Building Society — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307480/2023
- Decision date
- 17 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Vara Lakshmi Julakanti
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's application to reconsider the dismissal judgment dated 16 June 2025. The application was made well outside the 14-day time limit, but the tribunal nevertheless considered it and concluded there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
The tribunal found that the claimant had clearly and unequivocally withdrawn the unauthorised deduction from wages complaint at the earlier preliminary hearing. It was satisfied that the withdrawal was not ambiguous, was not made in response to questioning about the claim or its merits, and was not caused by anxiety or overwhelm at the time it was made.
The tribunal was not persuaded that either exception in Rule 51 applied, found that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the dismissal judgment, and confirmed that the original judgment still stands.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refuses reconsideration of a 16 June 2025 dismissal judgment issued after the claimant withdrew her unauthorised deduction from wages complaint at a preliminary hearing. The original dismissal judgment still stands. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 68 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 69 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 70 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 51 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- overriding objective
- Outasight VB Limited v Brown [2014] UKEAT/0253/14
- Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 936
- Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1
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.