Case 3313082/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Benassar v Innovate IFG Impact Food Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313082/2023
- Decision date
- 17 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Benassar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal had sent confirmation on 17 June 2024 that the claimant's claim was dismissed under what was then rule 27 of the Employment Tribunals' Rules of Procedure 2013. The claimant's representative applied on 19 June 2024 for reconsideration, within the 14 day time limit, but the application was sent only to the tribunal and was not copied to the respondent.
Employment Judge Anstis found that rule 71 required the application to be presented in writing and copied to the other party within 14 days. Although the failure to copy the respondent could be waived under rule 6(a), the judge concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to do so because the respondent only learned of the challenge more than a year later, no good reason was given for not copying the respondent, and there had still been no response to the original notice and order after it was resent.
The application for reconsideration was refused. The judgment did not make findings on the merits of the underlying discrimination or wages claims and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refuses the claimant's application to reconsider the prior dismissal of her claim. It does not determine the merits of this claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refuses the claimant's application to reconsider the prior dismissal of her claim. It does not determine the merits of this claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment refuses the claimant's application to reconsider the prior dismissal of her claim. It does not determine the merits of this claim. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refuses the claimant's application to reconsider the prior dismissal of her claim. It does not determine the merits of this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 27 of the Employment Tribunals' Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals' Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 6(a) 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.