Case 3305219/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Asghar v Integrated Care 24 — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305219/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Asghar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs M Asghar applied on 30 April 2024 for reconsideration of the preliminary hearing decision of 18 April 2024 concerning Webex messages. Employment Judge Hutchings refused the application.
The reason given was that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The tribunal was satisfied that the issue about the Webex messages had been addressed by the respondent’s witness under oath at the 18 April hearing.
The judge also recorded that the tribunal had addressed the claimant’s position on the Webex messages in a fair manner and proportionately to the issues in the case. The points raised in the claimant’s email of 30 April 2024 did not change that position. The request was noted as having come before the judge on 15 May 2024, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 22 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application dated 30 April 2024 for reconsideration of the decision regarding Webex messages made at the preliminary hearing on 18 April 2024; refused because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.