Case 6015043/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bainbridge v AND Ares Renewables Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015043/2024
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Bainbridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application for reconsideration of a judgment dated 14 March 2025 which had refused an application to amend. The application was made in time, following the judgment being sent to the parties on 12 May 2025, and relied on the claimant's assertion that the judge had misunderstood his schedule of loss and who he said he was employed by in March 2023.
The judge accepted that the original decision was based on an incorrect understanding. The claimant was not asserting that he was employed by Kingdom Energy System Limited before a transfer to the respondent, but that the undertaking he worked for transferred to Kingdom Energy System Limited.
The tribunal held that there were reasonable prospects of the reconsideration application being granted and gave the respondent until 30 May 2025 to respond. The judge's provisional view was that the earlier refusal to add Kingdom Energy System Limited as a respondent should be revoked, without prejudice to any time limit arguments that proposed respondent might have.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Judgment concerned an application for reconsideration of an earlier refusal to amend/add a respondent, not final determination of the underlying unfair dismissal, breach of contract, wages or working time claims. The tribunal found reasonable prospects of the reconsideration application being granted and invited the respondent's response. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 68 interests of justice
- Rule 69 time limit for reconsideration applications
- Rule 70 response to application for reconsideration
- Rule 3 overriding objective
- 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.
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.