Case 6004210/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Chaves v AND Wind River UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6004210/2024
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Chaves
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the claimant's application for reconsideration of the earlier judgment granting the respondent an extension of time to file a response. The application was received outside the 14-day time limit under Rule 71.
The claimant argued that there were reasons to oppose the extension application, that he could not see his grounds of resistance on the system, and that it was not clear the Judge had seen them. The Tribunal found that the claimant's opposition had been referred to the Judge and taken into account when the extension decision was made.
The Tribunal concluded that the matters raised did not outweigh the short delay and the respondent's arguable defence. The application for reconsideration was refused because there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of a judgment granting the respondent an extension of time to file a response. It did not determine the substantive claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Rule 71
- Rule 70
- Rule 5
- Rule 2
- Rule 72(1)
- Trimble v Supertravel Ltd [1982] ICR 440
- Fforde v Black EAT 68/80
- Williams v Ferrosan Ltd [2004] IRLR 607 EAT
- Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council v Marsden [2010] IRLR 743
- Outasight VB Ltd v Brown [2015] ICR D11
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.