Case 6012316/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Aaron Mediratta v DHL Supply Chain Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6012316/2025
- Decision date
- 10 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aaron Mediratta
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment concerns the claimant's application for reconsideration of an earlier judgment. The tribunal recorded that the earlier judgment had determined that the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal considered the reconsideration application under Rules 68 to 70 and the guidance in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust. It noted that reconsideration is only available where necessary in the interests of justice and is not an opportunity to re-litigate or reargue matters already decided.
The tribunal found that the application was based on a misunderstanding of the original reasoning. It explained that the earlier finding was that, on 15 August 2024, the claimant first made it sufficiently clear that he was seeking bereavement leave in respect of his grandfather's death, not compassionate leave. On that basis, the tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked and refused reconsideration.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The reasons state that the earlier judgment determined the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. This reconsideration judgment refused the claimant's application to revisit that outcome. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rules 68 to 70
- interests of justice
- Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0002/16/DA
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.