Case 2403522/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Asha Munir v Diecast Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403522/2024
- Decision date
- 23 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Asha Munir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reconsideration judgment, not a substantive liability decision. Employment Judge Feeney sat alone at Manchester on 16 December 2024. The claimant was represented by Mr Stephen Rochford, solicitor, and the respondent did not attend.
The tribunal held that the claimant's application for reconsideration of the rejection of the original claim form succeeded under grounds 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment records that the original claim form had been served on 14 June 2024.
As a result, the tribunal ordered that the claimant's name should be corrected to Ayana Brown and that the claim form of 14 June should be served on the respondent under that name. No substantive employment claim or monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal allowed the claimant's application for reconsideration of the rejection of the original claim form served on 14 June 2024. The judgment also records that the claimant's name should be corrected to Ayana Brown and that the claim form be treated as served on the respondent under that name. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- grounds 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.