Case 6005147/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Cooper v East Street Trading Services Ltd RECONSIDERATON — 2026
- Case reference
- 6005147/2025
- Decision date
- 13 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Cooper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis document is a reconsideration decision by Employment Judge Woodhead dated 12 March 2026. The underlying Rule 22 judgment of 13 February 2026 had found in favour of the Claimant on a claim of unauthorised deductions from wages and awarded £597. The Respondent's response to the original claim had been rejected on 2 December 2025 by Employment Judge Bax under Rule 19 because it was presented out of time and no application to extend time had been made.
The Respondent applied for reconsideration on 21 February 2026, asserting that hours had been cut lawfully across all staff due to an economic downturn, that staff received verbal warnings and, where requested, written notice, and querying whether TUPE applied given the business purchase had completed in late 2022. The Tribunal treated the application under Rules 68 to 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and conducted a preliminary assessment under Rule 70(2).
Applying the test of whether reconsideration was necessary in the interests of justice, and citing Ministry of Justice v Burton [2016] EWCA Civ 714 and Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust on the importance of finality in litigation, the Judge concluded there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underlying judgment of 13 February 2026 awarded the Claimant £597 for unauthorised deductions from wages under Rule 22 after the Respondent's response was rejected as out of time. The present document is a reconsideration decision (Employment Judge Woodhead, 12 March 2026) refusing the Respondent's application for reconsideration; the substantive outcome on the wages claim is therefore confirmed. | Upheld | — | £597 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £597
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 68 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (interests of justice)
- Rule 70(2) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (no reasonable prospect)
- Rule 3 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (overriding objective)
- Rule 19 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (rejection of response)
- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (judgment without hearing)
- Ministry of Justice v Burton [2016] EWCA Civ 714
- Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395
- Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 384
- Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16
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.