Case 2404797/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Padilla v Capita Customer Management Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404797/2022
- Decision date
- 13 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Padilla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 14 November 2024 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 13 November 2024. Employment Judge Buzzard considered the application under rules 70 and 72(1) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure, including whether reconsideration was necessary in the interests of justice and whether there was a reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
The judgment records that the earlier dismissal followed the claimant's withdrawal of all claims after the parties reached an agreed settlement documented by ACAS in a binding COT3. The tribunal had made no other decisions at the hearing. Because the parties had confirmed full settlement and the claimant had confirmed withdrawal of the claims, the judge found no prospect that reconsideration would change the outcome and refused the application.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The reconsideration judgment records that all claims were settled in full by a binding COT3, withdrawn by the claimant, and dismissed following withdrawal. It does not adjudicate the merits or provide a claim-specific remedy. | Settled | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The reconsideration judgment records that all claims were settled in full by a binding COT3, withdrawn by the claimant, and dismissed following withdrawal. It does not adjudicate the merits or provide a claim-specific remedy. | Settled | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The reconsideration judgment records that all claims were settled in full by a binding COT3, withdrawn by the claimant, and dismissed following withdrawal. It does not adjudicate the merits or provide a claim-specific remedy. | Settled | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reconsideration judgment records that all claims were settled in full by a binding COT3, withdrawn by the claimant, and dismissed following withdrawal. It does not adjudicate the merits or provide a claim-specific remedy. | Settled | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 70
- rule 72(1)
- overriding objective
- Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16
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.