Case 6001875/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Petrov v Refcool Refrigeration Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6001875/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore DECISION
- Venue
- Reconsideration considered
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Petrov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 24 June 2025 for reconsideration of the Judgment and Reasons dated 30 May 2025, which had been sent to the parties on 10 June 2025. Employment Judge Shore considered the application on the papers and refused it as having no reasonable prospects of success.
The judge stated that the application and attachments did not identify any error of law, procedural irregularity, or factual mistake in the earlier Judgment. The earlier findings concerned the claimant's failure to attend hearings on 29 April and 30 May 2025, failure to comply with case management orders, the Tribunal's consequent inability to conduct a fair and effective hearing, and the absence of reasonable prospects of success in the pleaded claims.
The judgment records that the claimant sought to revisit issues including Tribunal administration, the digital portal, previous case management, wages, overtime, mileage, discrimination, and correspondence. The judge found that these matters repeated earlier arguments and did not show that the original Judgment was wrong or unjust, so reconsideration was not required in the interests of justice.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The reconsideration judgment refused to revisit the 30 May 2025 Judgment. The text refers to pleaded claims and to a prior warning that failure to attend the relisted hearing could result in strike-out, but does not set out a detailed claim-by-claim disposal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The reconsideration judgment refers to discrimination among the matters the claimant sought to re-argue, and the listing identifies race discrimination. The text does not provide detailed findings on the discrimination allegation. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reconsideration judgment refers to disputes about wages, overtime and mileage. It refused reconsideration of the earlier Judgment and does not identify any monetary award. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The listing identifies Working Time Regulations and written pay statement issues. The reconsideration judgment gives no separate findings or remedy for this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The listing identifies a written pay statement issue, which is captured as other under the locked taxonomy. The reconsideration judgment does not provide separate findings on it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rules 68 to 71 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
- interests of justice
- Rule 68
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.