Case 6006482/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Romedan Shifa v Lionheart Security Services RECONSIDERATION — 2026
- Case reference
- 6006482/2024
- Decision date
- 3 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jonathan Gidney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Romedan Shifa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim had previously been struck out because he had not responded to Tribunal directions sent on 9 March 2025 and 10 April 2025 or to chasing correspondence dated 29 May 2025 and 13 January 2026. Three days after the strike-out judgment, Romedan Shifa applied for reconsideration and explained that he had not received the earlier communications, referring to difficulties receiving post in shared accommodation.
No final decision on reconsideration was made in this judgment. The Tribunal's provisional view was that Mr Shifa had demonstrated that he was pursuing the claim and that the strike-out judgment should therefore be revoked upon reconsideration, with directions issued for the future conduct of the case. The parties were invited to submit representations by 4.30pm on 24 July 2026, after which the application would be decided. The Tribunal also directed that future communications to Mr Shifa be sent by email. No remedy was determined or awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The underlying claim type is not identified in this reconsideration judgment. The claim was struck out by an earlier judgment for no longer being pursued and/or breach of a Tribunal direction. The reconsideration application remained undecided; the Tribunal's provisional view was that the strike-out judgment should be revoked. | Struck out | — | — |
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.