Case 6020067/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Pearson v Howard Smith and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020067/2024
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley’s
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr T Pearson
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 28 May 2025 Employment Judge Lancaster refused the claimant's application dated 20 May 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 9 May 2025. The tribunal said there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
The reasons given were that, although the claimant referred to an email dated 8 April 2025 that was not on the tribunal file, the judge had considered the follow-up email of 11 April 2025 and found no sufficient explanation for the long delay in bringing the claim. The application also did not repeat any substantive representations as to why time should be extended.
The tribunal said the reconsideration application did not address the reasoning in paragraph 13 of the original judgment, namely that it was proportionate to dismiss the claim for insufficient response to Employment Judge Deeley's rule 28 order. The judge added that, even if time were extended, the unfair dismissal claim had not been brought against the correct respondent, which was the employer, and that company no longer existed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This judgment refused the claimant's reconsideration application. It refers to the original decision striking out the unfair dismissal claim for effective non-compliance with Employment Judge Deeley's rule 28 order. The tribunal also said that, even if time were extended, the claim had not been brought against the correct respondent and the employer company no longer existed. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 72
- rule 28(3)
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.