Case 3323716/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Tolseeamah Veeramundar v National Westminster Bank plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 3323716/2021
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Tolseeamah Veeramundar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had previously brought claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay in claim number 3306574/2020. The parties settled that first claim, the claimant withdrew it, and it was dismissed following withdrawal by a judgment dated 5 January 2021 and sent to the parties on 5 February 2021.
The current claim was presented on 20 December 2021. It complained about a detrimental reference provided by the respondent in May 2021 following a request from Openwork Partnership and appeared to seek to reopen the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. Employment Judge Quill had treated the second claim as an application for reconsideration of the earlier dismissal judgment and rejected it as out of time, not in the interests of justice to extend time, and having no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the original decision.
Employment Judge Alliott found that, unless reconsidered or successfully appealed, the dismissal judgment in the first claim stood. The tribunal found the second claim did not and could not include an unfair dismissal complaint, and that any attempt to raise it again was an abuse of process and/or barred by issue estopple/res judicata. The tribunal also found it had no jurisdiction over the remaining complaint about the reference or supply of information, and struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the second claim did not and could not include a complaint of unfair dismissal because the first claim had been dismissed following withdrawal and the reconsideration application had been refused; raising it again was an abuse of process and/or barred by issue estopple/res judicata. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The residual complaint concerned a detrimental reference and/or supply of information by a regulated entity to another regulated entity. The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to entertain that complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- abuse of process
- issue estopple/res judicata
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.