Case 3202043/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Elizabeth Cullen v Havering Care Provider Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3202043/2023
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge I Comfort Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Elizabeth Cullen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 14 March 2025 for reconsideration of the refusal, at a preliminary hearing on 11 March 2025, of an application to amend her claim. The proposed amendment was to add discrimination arising from disability; the judgment notes that harassment related to disability had previously been identified as an issue, but discrimination arising from disability had not.
The Tribunal considered Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and the interests of justice test. The judge was not satisfied that there was a reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked, and refused the reconsideration application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refused the claimant's reconsideration application concerning an earlier refusal to amend her claim to add discrimination arising from disability. It did not determine the underlying substantive claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- interests of justice
- reasonable prospect of the Judgment 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.