Case 6000283/2024 · Employment Tribunal
JK v University of Bradford — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000283/2024
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
JK
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's applications dated 15 September and 11 October 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 8 September 2025. It found there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
The reasons state that the reconsideration application was based on alleged errors of law, unsustainable factual findings, and bias. The tribunal said those matters were properly for the Employment Appeal Tribunal rather than for reconsideration by the Employment Tribunal. It also noted that the claimant had been asked during the hearing whether he was making any application in relation to perceived bias, but he made no recusal application.
The tribunal further recorded that it had a duty to manage proceedings efficiently, which could include curtailing questions in cross-examination where appropriate. It said the list of issues had been clarified with both parties at the start of the hearing. No monetary remedy is recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment concerns the claimant's applications dated 15 September and 11 October 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent on 8 September 2025. The tribunal refused those applications; it does not set out the underlying merits outcome. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect 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.