Case 3312958/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Morel – Zifonte Palladino v Next Steps Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312958/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Morel – Zifonte Palladino
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 29 August 2022 the claimant applied for reconsideration of the judgment sent on 16 August 2022. The tribunal recorded that the earlier reserved judgment had struck out a number of claims as having no reasonable prospects of success, or alternatively had ordered deposits.
The stated basis for the application was alleged negligence and bad legal representation by Ms Brine, Consultant Solicitor at McCabe and Co Employment Solicitors. Employment Judge Laidler applied rule 70 and rule 72 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013 and held that dissatisfaction with representation did not itself make reconsideration necessary in the interests of justice.
The tribunal noted that the respondent had already attended a day-long hearing and would incur further time and expense if the original judgment were set aside and the issues reheard. It also stated that the claimant had a remedy against her representative if she considered the representation fell below the required standard. The application was refused because there were no reasonable prospects of the original decision being varied or revoked.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application dated 29 August 2022 for reconsideration of the judgment sent on 16 August 2022. The tribunal refused the application under rule 72. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- interests of justice
- no reasonable prospects 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.