Case 6002309/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Pacheco v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust and 3 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 6002309/2023
- Decision date
- 2 September 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Dated
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mrs C Pacheco
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Brewer refused Mrs C Pacheco's application dated 1 September 2026 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 14 August 2026. Rule 69 of the 2024 Procedure Rules required the application to be sent within 14 days. Under Rule 5(4), the date the judgment was sent was excluded from that calculation. The deadline was midnight on 28 August 2026, so the application was out of time.
The judge also found that, even if the application had been in time, there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The matters raised had already been considered at the hearing. At that hearing, 12 months had passed since the Unless Order was made and almost nine months since the compliance deadline, without any attempt to comply. No evidence had been provided that the claimant was unable to deal with the subject matter of the order throughout that period. No monetary remedy was addressed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused. This was a procedural decision; the judgment does not state the outcomes of the underlying substantive claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 69 of the 2024 Procedure Rules: 14-day deadline for reconsideration applications
- Rule 5(4): exclusion of the date the judgment was sent when calculating time
- 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.