Case 2602161/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Schaefer v UK Government RECONSIDERATION — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602161/2018
- Decision date
- 11 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Schaefer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 March 2019, after a one-day preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Camp struck out the claimant's entire claim for no reasonable prospects of success. The written reasons were sent to the parties on 11 April 2019. This judgment was made without a hearing under rule 72(1) after the claimant's 18 April 2019 application, treated as a reconsideration application.
The judge refused reconsideration because the application did not engage with the core reason for the original strike-out, namely that the employment tribunal had no power to deal with the claim the claimant wanted to bring. The judge rejected the complaints about the timing of the respondent's skeleton argument, alleged bias in the wording of the decision, the judge's questioning at the preliminary hearing, alleged new evidence, and later County Court documents. The judge concluded that none of those points gave a reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, and noted that any appeal was a matter for the Employment Appeal Tribunal. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment concerns the claimant's application for reconsideration, which was refused without a hearing under rule 72(1). It did not determine a new substantive employment claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 72(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
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.