Case 3202226/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Bishu Sherchan (Claimant in Case No 3202226/2019) Ms Paris Van Zanten (Claimant in Case No 3202450/2019) v Andrea Aston and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202226/2019
- Decision date
- 7 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Dated
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms Bishu Sherchan (Claimant in Case No 3202226/2019) Ms Paris Van Zanten (Claimant in Case No 3202450/2019)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reconsideration decision under Employment Tribunal Rules 70 to 72, not a fresh liability judgment. Andrea Aston applied to reopen the judgment dated 6 October 2020, which had found that both claimants were employed by her rather than by SaveLocal Convenience Stores Limited. The tribunal applied rule 72(1) and the authorities cited in the reasons on finality and reconsideration, including Ministry of Justice v Burton and Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust, and said reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate matters or take a second bite at the cherry.
The tribunal rejected the application as having no reasonable prospects of success. It held that the arguments about corporate identity, bank statements, cash payments, the display of the company name at the premises, payroll treatment, and the evidence said to support a company employment relationship did not undermine the original findings. The judge said the earlier decision had already analysed all the evidence and that the claimants had been hired on a cash-in-hand basis off the books by Andrea Aston, with no intention that the company would be their employer.
One factual correction was made: the start date for Ms Van Zanten's work at the Colchester shop was corrected to October 2018. The judge stated that this error did not affect the employment-status conclusion and therefore did not provide any basis for reconsideration. The application was dismissed without a hearing.
The decision was signed by Employment Judge Crosfill on 13 November 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The First Respondent's application for reconsideration of the judgment dated 6 October 2020 was dismissed because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judge corrected a typing error in the earlier reasons by changing the start date for Ms Van Zanten's work to October 2018, but held that this did not affect the outcome. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, rule 70
- Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, rule 71
- Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, rule 72(1)
- interests of justice
- Ministry of Justice v Burton
- Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust
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.