Case 3306190/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Smith v Mullen Electrical Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3306190/2020
- Decision date
- 8 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment concerned the respondent's application dated 1 June 2021 for an extension of time to apply for reconsideration of the tribunal's earlier judgment dated 27 April 2021. The tribunal granted the extension and decided that it was necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the earlier judgment under rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On reconsideration, the tribunal revoked its previous decision to strike out the response and instead made case management orders. This judgment therefore did not determine the substantive merits of the underlying employment claims; it dealt with the procedural reconsideration of the earlier strikeout decision.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay the claimant's legal costs of the reconsideration application, including the wasted costs of the hearing on 28 April 2021. Those costs were assessed at £7,550.40 inclusive of VAT and were ordered to be paid by no later than 12 November 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondent's application for an extension of time and for reconsideration was granted. On reconsideration, the tribunal revoked the earlier decision to strike out the response and made case management orders instead. The monetary award was the claimant's legal costs of the reconsideration application, including wasted costs of the hearing on 28 April 2021. | Upheld | — | £7,550 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,550
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
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.