Case 6004070/2024 · Employment Tribunal
M O’Callaghan v Flint Hire & Supply Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6004070/2024
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M O’Callaghan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 4 December 2024 for reconsideration of a judgment sent to the parties on 19 July 2024. That earlier judgment had struck out the unfair dismissal complaint on the papers because the claimant did not have two years' service and had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The Tribunal found that the reconsideration application was received over four months after the time limit had expired and gave no explanation for the delay. It also found that neither the application nor the document sent on 19 July 2024 disclosed any reason why the earlier judgment should be reconsidered, and that the claimant did not dispute lacking the necessary qualifying service.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refused the claimant's reconsideration application concerning the earlier strike out of the unfair dismissal complaint for lack of two years' qualifying service. The breach of contract/wrongful dismissal complaint is mentioned but not adjudicated in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 72 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.