Case 3311840/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Kelly v Bulk Transfer Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311840/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen JUDGMENT
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 27 January 2025, the claimant's representative applied for reconsideration of the decision dated 23 January 2025 under rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Judge dealt with the application without a hearing and, after considering representations from both parties, declined to reconsider the earlier decision.
The tribunal noted that the claimant's reasons for reconsideration were not contained in the original application and that no explanation had been provided for that omission. The Judge said that if the claimant wished to make an application in relation to any behaviour by the respondent, it had to be supported by evidence; a speculative basis was not sufficient to interrupt the tribunal's orders or the overriding objective. The tribunal concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to allow reconsideration.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application dated 27/1/2025 to reconsider the decision dated 23/1/2025 under rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal refused reconsideration without a hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- interests of justice
- overriding objective
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.