Case 3300554/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v JS Fountaine and Son — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300554/2019
- Decision date
- 10 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 7 August 2019 Employment Judge Postle refused the respondent's application dated 24 April 2019 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 10 May 2019. The tribunal said there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
The reasons given were that the claim had been properly served at the respondent's address and the respondents had already been represented before proceedings were issued. The respondent's legal representatives accepted that the failure to file a response was entirely their error because they diarised the wrong deadline. The judge added that a claimant one day out of time would unlikely be granted an extension on grounds of not reasonably practicable or just and equitable, and said the same approach should apply to the respondents.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment only determines the respondent's application dated 24 April 2019 for reconsideration, which was refused. The underlying substantive claims are not set out in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 72
- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.