Case 6020421/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Lukasz Mejer v Windowflowers Ltd Reconsideration — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020421/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lukasz Mejer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for reconsideration of the tribunal's earlier decision to grant the respondent an extension of time to serve its ET3. Employment Judge Hutchings refused the reconsideration application, finding there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
The judge found that the tribunal had sent the notice of claim to the respondent using the address provided by the claimant, but that the address was incomplete because it lacked a premises number or name. The judge accepted that the respondent did not receive the claim form and considered it fair and just, consistently with the overriding objective, to allow a 28-day extension for the response.
The judgment also records that the claimant's objection and reconsideration request did not change that decision. The judge found no prejudice to the claimant from the extension, noting that no hearing had been listed when the extension was granted and that a case management hearing was subsequently listed for 8 January 2026.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment is a reconsideration decision about an extension of time for service of the ET3. It does not determine the substantive breach of contract complaint. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment is a reconsideration decision about an extension of time for service of the ET3. It does not determine the substantive public interest disclosure complaint. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment is a reconsideration decision about an extension of time for service of the ET3. It does not determine the substantive race discrimination complaint. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21(1) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules
- overriding objective
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.