’s submissions that these claims appeared to have little factual basis and were misconceived. 51. The tribunal could find no reason to justify an extension of time on just and equitable grounds.10 Overriding Objective 52. The Tribunal considered that refusal of the application to amend was in accordance with the overriding objective. 53. The amendment seeks to introduce new and vague claims. Further, the claims would require considerable further specification which would entail delay and expense. 54. The claims apeared to have little or no factual basis and little or no prospect of success. 55. The claims (apart from the automatic unfair dismisal claim which had no basis in law) were time barred and it would not have been just nor equitable to have extended the time limits 56. The Tribunal considers that there would have been considerable prejudice to the — employment tribunal cases | Tribunal Watch
Employer file
Employment tribunal cases against ’s submissions that these claims appeared to have little factual basis and were misconceived. 51. The tribunal could find no reason to justify an extension of time on just and equitable grounds.10 Overriding Objective 52. The Tribunal considered that refusal of the application to amend was in accordance with the overriding objective. 53. The amendment seeks to introduce new and vague claims. Further, the claims would require considerable further specification which would entail delay and expense. 54. The claims apeared to have little or no factual basis and little or no prospect of success. 55. The claims (apart from the automatic unfair dismisal claim which had no basis in law) were time barred and it would not have been just nor equitable to have extended the time limits 56. The Tribunal considers that there would have been considerable prejudice to the
Since 2017, ’s submissions that these claims appeared to have little factual basis and were misconceived. 51. The tribunal could find no reason to justify an extension of time on just and equitable grounds.10 Overriding Objective 52. The Tribunal considered that refusal of the application to amend was in accordance with the overriding objective. 53. The amendment seeks to introduce new and vague claims. Further, the claims would require considerable further specification which would entail delay and expense. 54. The claims apeared to have little or no factual basis and little or no prospect of success. 55. The claims (apart from the automatic unfair dismisal claim which had no basis in law) were time barred and it would not have been just nor equitable to have extended the time limits 56. The Tribunal considers that there would have been considerable prejudice to the has appeared as a respondent in 1 employment tribunal case, with £0 in total awards recorded against the employer.
Data extracted from published employment tribunal judgments on gov.uk. Case reference, decision date, judge, venue and claim categories come from structured metadata. Claimant and respondent names are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Outcomes and compensation are not yet populated for every case — see how the data is built.