Ms C Cashman v Liverpool John Moores University Higher Education Corporation: 2407692/2023
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s application, comprised of two emails dated 31 March 2025 and 10 May 2025, for reconsideration of the dismissal judgment of 6 March 2025, was made outside of the time limit in Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“the Rules”). Time has been extended to allow the application to be considered late. The application itself is refused. As per Rule 70(2) of the Rules, the application is refused because there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. This is because the application discloses no evidence or argument which demonstrates that it would be in the interests of justice to revoke the dismissal judgment. The case remains dismissed by reason of the judgment dated 6 March 2025.REASONS
[1]The claimant applied for reconsideration of the dismissal judgment on 31 March and 10 May 2025. The respondent has provided written submissions dated 25 June 2025 and 2 July 2025, and the claimant replied with further evidence on 27 June and 2 July 2025. Neither party requested a hearing. I consider that it is proportionate to decide this matter on the basis of those written submissions.[2]The history of the proceedings is relevant to the matters before this Tribunal, and is recounted in brief below.[3]The claim form, which was submitted by the claimant on 25 July 2023, ticked the boxes for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, but provided no other details or particulars of claim. The claimant wrote, in the box headed “What compensation or remedy are you seeking?” (box 9.2) “Apology and for staff involved to be reprimanded.” The claimant had also ticked the box requesting re-engagement but had not been dismissed by the respondent.[4]The claimant had also not provided an accurate ACAS Early Conciliation number with her claim form. The claimant was written to by EJ Leach on 9 August 2023 asking her to check and confirm the ACAS number provided, and asking for further details of her claims so that they could be understood. The request for further details took the form of a list of specific points for the claimant to address, some of which were very straightforward such as “were you dismissed? If so, when? Who dismissed you? What reason was given?”.[5]The claimant was asked to reply by 23 August 2023, but did not reply until 27 October 2023. She also did not address the questions in the Tribunal letter but did provide information about the conditions she said were disabilities. She asked the judge who had written the letter to review “the merits of the case”.[6]She did not address the issue of the ACAS EC number, and so EJ Allen wrote on 30 October 2023 to reject the claim on this basis. She was provided with an information leaflet about how to challenge this, including a section that stated “How do I correct the problem identified in the rejection letter?”[7]She wrote back on several occasions, but each time did not address the questions posed by the Tribunal. EJ Horne wrote to the claimant on 8 November 2023 reminding her again of the need for an ACAS EC number, and explaining to her that this would be what any request for reconsideration of the rejection would need to include. By 20 November 2023, the claimant had provided an ACAS EC certificate and her application consisted of asking that she was “allowed to work on my case for two weeks and resubmit”. On 21 November 2023 EJ Batten accepted the claim after reconsideration.[8]During the period after the response was submitted and before the first case management hearing, the claimant corresponded on a number of occasions with the respondent and also with the Tribunal, as if the Tribunal were one and the same as the respondent’s organisation. Therefore the Tribunal file contains a number of emails which simply make statements such as “Please forward to the relevant people” when it is unclear which organisation the claimant is addressing. The emails also contain the respondent’s responses to the claimant’s Subject Access Request from the respondent. They are also at times aggressive in tone.[9]EJ Butler wrote to the claimant on 22 February 2024 and said “I have listed this hearing for a case management hearing. At that hearing the claimant will need to be able to explain to the judge what precisely her claim is. The questions asked by EJ Leach on 09 August 2023 will be helpful guides for the claimant. As she must be able to provide all of this information at that hearing. The claimant will need to be able to explain what impairment she has that she says is a disability, and that has caused her to be discriminated against. The claimant will also have to be able to explain the specific conduct that she says were acts of discrimination that she was subjected to. This must include the date she alleges such discrimination took place and who she says subject her to it. The claimant must also stop copying in the tribunal into emails that it does not need to know about. Directions for disclosing/exchanging evidence will be given at the preliminary hearing. The claimant should only contact the tribunal where she is applying for some form of order.”[10]Despite this, the claimant continued to correspond with the Tribunal. She was written to by EJ Tobin and EJ Holmes about her repeated requests for early disclosure. She had been sent a case management agenda to complete and did complete an agenda before the case management hearing, confirming in the “remedy” section that in the event that she was successful, she sought by way of compensation two specific apologies, and “review of the policy and procedures and do better next time”.[11]By the time of the first case management hearing in 19 July 2024, the issues were not clarified because the claimant told EJ Robinson that she was waiting for legal advice and wanted to amend her claim. I note that her claim had been before the Tribunal for a year at this point. Another case management hearing was listed for 8 November 2024. The claimant had been asked to provide further particulars of her claim for a failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. She provided Particulars of Claim that were 15 pages and 70 paragraphs long.[12]The claimant had by this point been dismissed, and the claim included an unfair dismissal complaint. The respondent’s response to this was that “The Respondent reasonably formed the view that the Claimant’s unacceptable and ungovernable conduct arose in consequence of her multiple mental health issues and accordingly dismissed her, fairly, for capability, eschewing the disciplinary route. The Respondent will say that such dismissal can be justified under s15 of the EA2010 as it is necessary for it to maintain standards of orderly and civil conduct in the workplace in order to safeguard the wellbeing of its staff and the harmonious running of the department, and to maintain the quality of the student experience. Further, the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant’s presence in the laboratory environment was an unacceptable health and safety risk due to her erratic behaviour and unwillingness to follow management instructions. Dismissal of the Claimant was therefore a proportionate means of ensuring the continued safety of staff and students in that area.”[13]At a further case management hearing on 8 November 2024, the respondent’s objections to the claimant’s amended particulars of claim were discussed. EJ Buzzard noted the following points (as recorded in the record of that preliminary hearing): “10) The claimant at the first preliminary hearing indicated that she wished to raise a number of additional allegations. Judge Robinson granted the claimant an opportunity to seek legal advice and if she desired to submit an amendment application to bring in additional claims. 11) The claimant in advance of this hearing made such an application. It is very lengthy, running to 15 pages of narrative description of events. It contains a very substantial number of additional potential allegations spanning a substantial period of time prior her dismissal. Despite this, the document still lacks necessary dates and names, and at time states it is only ‘examples’ of the allegations she makes. [………….] 13) The respondent had raised, in advance of this hearing, an objection to the amendment applications made. This objection was generic, noting that there was still not proper clarity about the allegations the claimant seeks to add.[14]In the circumstances it was not possible to determine the claimant’s application to amend her claim, both because there was not enough time at this hearing and because they were still not properly set out.” 14. A further preliminary hearing was listed for 20 January 2025, to attempt to clarify the claims for the third time.[15]EJ Buzzard had provided very specific instructions at the previous case management hearing as to what the claimant needed to do if she still wished to add new claims to her existing ones. This was because of the considerable difficulty he (and the respondent) had experienced in understanding the claimant’s case.[16]The claimant’s application failed to comply with this. She failed to set her new complaints in a separate document, despite this being EJ Buzzard’s express instruction. She instead produced a 46-page (increased from the previous 15 page document) narrative Chronology of Events and a “Table of Claims” for disability discrimination. The respondent objected to her amendments in a letter dated 10 January 2025.[17]The case management hearing took place on 20 January 2025, at which the claimant was represented by a solicitor.[18]Having read the record of the Case Management hearing from 20 January 2025, the Employment Judge and the solicitors for both sides made concerted efforts to clarify the claimant’s claims and provide each party with a clear and agreed list of issues to take matters forward to a final resolution of the claims.[19]At that hearing, the matter was listed for a ten-day final hearing in the Liverpool Employment Tribunal. The claimant’s application to amend her claims was determined, with some amendments being allowed and some refused, with the refusals being largely due to a continued lack of clarity in the pleadings and due to the historic nature of some of the allegations. At the end of the hearing, the parties had formulated a clear list of issues.[20]The claimant received the case management record and case management orders of EJ Humble by email at 15.38 on 6 February 2025. The email from the Tribunal administration stated “Please see attached Case Management Order for the above case”.[21]The parties were also sent a notice of hearing dated 6 February 2025 for the final hearing in the matter, which as noted above was listed for ten days at the Liverpool Employment Tribunal from 16-27 February 2026.[22]On 7 February 2025, the respondent and the Tribunal received the following email from the claimant, which stated: “I have no intention to move this case forward. No sum of money will ever provide resolve for what this university did to me without the correct apology. Their attitude and behaviour across the last 3 years means I’ll never work again. I would rather end my life than live like this. Please close this case.”[23]I note that at the time there was nothing occurring, on the information available to the Tribunal, to prompt this. The case management hearing had been effective. The matter was moving forward to a final hearing. The claimant reported no events to prompt the email of 7 February, beyond “their attitude and behaviour across the last 3 years.”[24]The Tribunal wrote to the claimant acknowledging the withdrawal on 5 March 2025, but did not dismiss the claims at this stage. A dismissal judgment was signed on 6 March 2025 by Legal Officer Ellis and sent to the parties that day.[25]On 31 March 2025 the claimant wrote to the Tribunal stating that she believed that “during the time of withdrawing this complaint I was extremely unwell due to the excessive pressure from LJMU instead of just telling a team leader she had been discriminatory”. She said that she was “placed on a mental health ward by 2 psychiatrist and an amhp. During this period I suffered my first psychotic break dues (sic) to the extensive bullying campaign by HR and the legal despite me telling them I expect an apology”.[26]Again, there is no evidence available to the Tribunal to indicate what prompted this. The claimant refers to “excessive pressure from LJMU” and “the extensive bullying campaign by HR and legal” but there is no evidence of any such behaviour by the respondent, and particularly not in the period from the end of the case management hearing to the date of the withdrawal email.[27]The claimant then received a letter from EJ Slater dated 6 May 2025 which confirmed that the withdrawal brought the claim to an end, that the Tribunal cannot reactivate this, but that the claimant would be able to apply for a reconsideration of the judgment that dismissed the claim, which may allow the claimant to present a new claim on the same basis (albeit that this would be significantly out of time).[28]The claimant replied on 10 May 2025 to say: “I would like to apply for reconsideration of judgment dismissing my claim. I would like the judgment to be revoked. I understand I would be asking for the decision that is outside the normal time limits of 14 days. I had been placed on a section 136 by Merseyside Police when they found me suicidal at the motorway bridge. I was placed in hospital for three weeks was hearing voices and hallucinating for the first the first time due to the stress. It would be in the interest of justice to reconsider the judgment dismissing my claim because I would like an independent ruling of this case to prevent another case like this. The sustained discrimination faced by colleagues and their most senior staff at LJMU have contributed to extreme suicidal feelings and multiple attempts to end my life. I am in the process of being reviewed for PTSD because of the impact it has had/still having on me.”[29]REJ Franey then wrote to the claimant on 12 June 2025, noting that EJ Slater had written to the claimant without sight of the email of 31 March 2025 and that this could be treated as an application for reconsideration of the dismissal judgment. However, the claimant was told that she would need to provide evidence of why the time for seeking reconsideration should be extended by 11 days from 20 March (the expiry of the deadline) to 31 March (the date of the claimant’s application). The claimant was also reminded by REJ Franey that “Revocation of the judgment would mean that the claimant is free to pursue a new claim, although time limit issues would arise, but the withdrawal of 7 February 2025 remains effective under Rule 50 to end case number 2407692/2023.”[30]The respondent objected on 25 June 2025 to the claimant’s application of 10 May 2025. It noted that it had seen no evidence of the claimant’s admission into hospital and subsequent treatment as an inpatient. It also highlighted that between 19 March and 30 March 2025, the claimant sent “a range of confrontational and abusive emails to a range of parties both within the University and externally”. The Tribunal was supplied with those emails. They are accurately characterised as confrontational and abusive. The respondent notes that “time should not be extended where a party was able to make an application earlier but has opted to threaten the other side first in a bid to achieve their aims through intimidation.” I accept the respondent’s submission that following the receipt of the dismissal judgment on 5 March 2025, the claimant sent 26 emails abusing and threatening the respondent before contacting the Tribunal on 31 March 2025.[31]Notably, the respondent also submitted the following point, which is relevant to the decision before this Tribunal: “In her correspondence with the Tribunal, the Claimant refers to the stress and pressure that she has experienced during these proceedings. Should fresh proceedings be commenced, that stress and pressure can be expected to recur and indeed intensify as the matter progresses to a final hearing. The Tribunal is an adversarial arena and the Respondent cannot be blamed for any stress that the Claimant experiences simply because the Respondent robustly defends its position. It is therefore likely that the Claimant will again struggle to cope with the demands of her claim if she is given the opportunity to pursue it further, which may well result in future delays and postponements that will undermine the prospects of a fair hearing.”[32]The claimant wrote to the Tribunal on 27 June 2025 with supporting evidence which demonstrated that she was admitted to hospital via A&E on 12 February 2025 and discharged on 13 March 2025. The claimant wrote “I deserve to face the respondent in tribunal court for what LJMU allowed to happen and for Senior Staff not corrected other peoples behaviours but provided encouragement to each other instead. If these procedures were to be cancelled it allows LJMU to do this to someone else which in turn fills the courts.” She said that “The decision on the 5th March 25 was made while I was significantly mentally unwell and hearing voices for the first time.”[33]The respondent’s objection of 25 June 2025 noted the following points:a. The claimant was not in hospital at the time of the email of withdrawal on 7 February 2025;b. The respondent’s behaviour cannot be properly characterised as putting the claimant under “excessive pressure”, that in fact it was the claimant’s behaviour that has caused significant work and time to be spent on the claims by the respondent;c. The claimant has identified no hardship that will accrue to her, but instead refers to her wish that the outcome of these proceedings might benefit a hypothetical future class of employees of the respondent. She also consistently asks for an apology, which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award.d. It is highly likely that the claimant would continue to subject the respondent’s employees to invective and vitriol.e. The respondent is entitled to finality in litigationf. The withdrawal was in clear, unequivocal and unambiguous terms.[34]I note that the claimant’s most inappropriate conduct occurred after she was discharged from hospital, from 19 to 30 March 2025, a time when the claimant told the Tribunal that she had received hospital support and, according to her medical evidence, was discharged with an “optimised” medication plan and a community mental health key worker for support.The Law
[35]A withdrawal of a claim is a final act (rule 50 ET Rules 2024) and a Tribunal has no power to reinstate or reactivate a claim once it is withdrawn, provided that the withdrawal itself satisfies the criteria set out in Segor v Goodrich Actuation Systems Ltd [2012] UKEAT/0145/11/DM, paragraph 11[36]Where a claim has been withdrawn, a Tribunal must issue a judgment dismissing the claim. This means, as per Rule 51 (ET Rules 2024) “that the party advancing it may not commence a further claim against the party responding or replying to it raising the same, or substantially the same complaint”.[37]It is possible to revoke a Tribunal judgment, if a party applies for a reconsideration of that judgment, and Rule 68 says that judgments may be varied or revoked if it is “necessary in the interests of justice to do so”.[38]The phrase “in the interests of justice” refers to the duty on the Tribunal to give effect to the overriding objective in Rule 3 of the Rules to deal with cases “fairly and justly”. This includes such considerations as:a. ensuring that the parties are on an equal footingb. dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issuesc. avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedingsd. avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues; ande. saving expense.[39]The Tribunal must also consider the principles of natural justice and fairness.[40]Taken all together, this “means having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the review or reconsideration, but also to the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation”. (Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11, EAT). Therefore, the interests of justice have to be seen from both sides of the case.[41]The procedure for reconsideration is that it must be made within 14 days of the date on which the written record of the judgment is sent to the parties (rule 69). Time may be extended by the Tribunal to allow an application late (rule 5(7)).[42]The process for reconsideration (rule 70) is that, on consideration by the Tribunal, if there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked, the application must be refused. Time extended and reconsideration refused[43]The Tribunal allows an extension of time under rule 5(7) to allow the application for reconsideration to be made late. The claimant was hospitalised from 12 February 2025. Time to apply for the reconsideration ran for 14 days from 6 March 2025. The application dated 31 March was 11 days late, but for 7 of those days the claimant was an in-patient in hospital, which time is discounted. The Tribunal exercises its discretion to allow the reconsideration application to be submitted effectively 4 days late.[44]However, reconsideration is refused, as there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.[45]This is because the claimant’s withdrawal was clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. The claimant has not provided evidence that she lacked capacity to litigate at that point when the withdrawal was sent. Indeed, it was sent on 7 February 2025, some 5 days before the claimant’s episode that led to her hospital admission.[46]The question for the Tribunal is whether it is in the interests of justice to allow the dismissal judgment to be revoked. As noted in Outasight VB Ltd v Brown (above), that means the interests of justice of both parties. I accept the respondent’s submission that the claimant has identified no hardship that will accrue to her if the judgment is not revoked. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order the respondent to apologise to her. The Tribunal does not allow litigants to conduct a claim on behalf of other members of the respondent’s staff, or for the benefit of those who may work there in future. These are the claimant’s main objectives stated on numerous occasions.[47]By contrast, the hardship to the respondent of responding to this claim has been significant. The claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable, even once allowances are made for the fact that she is a litigant in person with mental health conditions. The Tribunal facilitates access to justice for thousands of parties without legal representation and with mental health impairments each year, but that does not mean that the Tribunal and the other side are obliged to tolerate abusive, uncooperative and unreasonable behaviour from such litigants.[48]The claimant has been consistently late and/or has failed to comply with case management orders. It required three case management hearings to finalise a list of issues. As the account of the case set out above indicates, this claim has taken up a disproportionate amount of Tribunal and judicial time and resources. The cost to the respondent will have been significant. She has been abusive to the respondent and its staff during these proceedings, most notably on 30 March 2025. A sample of the content of these emails is as follows:a. On 30 March 2025 at 10.21 to Ms Steele and Ms Scharf “If I hear of any member staff involved in this case speaking publicly, they’ll be getting the court documents. They’ll also be going to all Liverpool based companies this week and individuals can expect private letters”b. On 30 March 2025 at 10.24 to Ms Steele and Ms Scharf “I’ll be starting with Lynne, Sue and then Aly. And they’ll be published. What you allowed to happen was disgusting.”c. On 30 March 2025 at 10.28 to Ms Steele and Ms Scharf “you two presumed a (sic) was wrong instead of investigating correctly. That’s called lazy and lacking integrity”d. On 30 March 2025 at 10.31 to Ms Steele and Ms Scharf “I want the apology that I’m owed. From this week, I’ll be working my way through the staff. What you allowed to happen was unfair and discriminatory.”e. On 30 March 2025 at 10.33 to Ms Steele and Ms Scharf as well as Ms Lee, Ms Purkis and Ms Kane: “I want the fucking apology that I am owed.”f. On 30 March 2025 at 10.37 to Ms Scharf and various others of the respondent’s staff plus BBC Radio Merseyside “Hi would you like the full email schedule. There are certain staff members from this establishment that know they are wrong and made me ill to the point of going to the motorway bridge and being sectioned”g. On 30 March 2025 at 10.38 to Ms Steele, Ms Scharf and Ms Lee “You all lied to cover for staff you knew treated me shitty. I’m sick of it”[49]Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the claimant’s behaviour suggests that she has no interest in these proceedings continuing to a final hearing and in being given a final decision on her complaints.[50]When a solicitor attended the third case management hearing on her behalf on 20 January 2025, the claims were finally clarified and a list of issues drawn up. The matter was set down for a final hearing and the parties finally made the progress that had been sought since July 2023. This was confirmed to the parties by the Tribunal in letters send on 6 February 2025.[51]The claimant’s response to this was to immediately derail that progress the very next day, by her email of 7 February 2025, in which she said “I have no intention to move this case forward” and “please close this case.”[52]Before any application for reconsideration of the dismissal judgment was made, the claimant then spent almost two weeks threatening the respondent’s staff with abusive messages, sending 20 messages on 30 March 2025 alone as noted above.[53]It would appear that the claimant’s primary purpose in this litigation was not to have the Tribunal decide her claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. Indeed, she said that she had “no intention” to move it forward. Her email of 7 February 2025 notes “No sum of money will ever provide resolve for what this university did to me without the correct apology.” The Tribunal cannot order a party to apologise. No remedy is therefore available that would be acceptable to the claimant.[54]It is not in the interests of justice to provide the claimant with a second opportunity to conduct litigation in this manner. As noted by the respondent (above), it is likely that “the Claimant will again struggle to cope with the demands of her claim if she is given the opportunity to pursue it further, which may well result in future delays and postponements that will undermine the prospects of a fair hearing.” There is no evidence that the claimant’s behaviour would change or improve, or her attitude to the litigation be more respectful, co-operative and proportionate. Furthermore, a fresh application to the Tribunal would have considerable hurdles to overcome, such as the fact that the claim would be considerably out of time and that there would be serious prejudice to the quality of the evidence caused by such a delay.[55]There is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being revoked. There is no evidence that it is in the interests of justice to do so. The application for reconsideration fails. The claims remain dismissed. Approved byThe Law
[1]The claimant’s application to extend time to present an application to have a judge consider afresh, pursuant to Rule 7(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, the judgment that had been made by Legal Officer Ellis dismissing her original claim on withdrawal, is refused.[2]The application pursuant to Rule 7(2) has therefore been presented out of time and the application is refused.[3]Legal Officer Ellis’s judgment dismissing the claim on withdrawal by the claimant remains valid.[4]Employment Judge Butler has considered the claimant’s email of 27 June 2025, which has been taken as an application by the claimant to extend time to present an application to have a judge consider afresh, pursuant to Rule 7(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, the judgment that had been made by Legal Officer Ellis dismissing her original claim on withdrawal. And this has been refused, for the reasons explained below.[5]The timeline on this matter provides useful context:a. The claimant by email dated 07 February 2025 emailed the tribunal with an unambiguous withdrawal of her claim.b. The tribunal acknowledged this withdrawal by letter dated 05 March 2025, and a judgment dismissing the claim on withdrawal was issued by Legal Officer Ellis on 06 March 2025. On the footer to this judgment, it was explained that as this decision had been made by a Legal Officer, the claimant could, pursuant to Rule 7 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, apply in writing to the Tribunal within 14 days to have considered afresh by a Judge.c. The claimant emailed the tribunal on 31 March 2025, this being some 25 days after the judgment of Legal Officer Ellis had been issued, and outside of the 14-day period permitted to seek to have the decision considered afresh by a Judge. In this email the claimant explained that there were various reasons behind her decision to withdraw her case (citing that she was extremely unwell, was on a section 136, had suffered a psychotic break and was hearing voices amongst other things) and that she wanted her case to be ‘reopened’, and if that was not possible then she would like to present a fresh claim.d. The claimant’s email of 31 March 2025 was referred to Employment Judge Shotter, who directed that a letter be sent to the claimant on 06 May 2025. In this letter, EJ Shotter explained numerous matters, including that the claimant’s withdrawal brought her claim to an end, and that this would prevent her from presenting a new claim if it was about the same matters. Further, EJ Shotter explained that the claimant could apply for reconsideration, but that any such application would be presented outside of the 14 days from the date the judgment was sent to her, which would thus require the claimant to apply to extend time to present such an application.e. The claimant emailed the tribunal on 10 May 2025. This was to apply for reconsideration of the judgement dismissing her claim and seeking for the 14-day time limit to present such an application to be extended. The claimant explained that she had been placed on a section 136 by Merseyside Police following her being suicidal. And that she was placed in hospital for three weeks following hearing voices and hallucinating. The claimant refers to ‘being reviewed for PTSD’.f. This matter was then referred to Regional Employment Judge Franey on 12 June 2025. He explained that having reviewed the file, he agreed with both the actions of Legal Officer Ellis and the contents of EJ Shotter’s letter of 06 March 2025. However, REJ Franey also explained that it was possible to treat the email of 31 March 2025 as an application for reconsideration of the judgment dismissing the claim. And that if the claimant wanted to extend time for this application, then she would need to provide the tribunal with evidence within 14 days why the claimant says that ‘time for seeking reconsideration should be extended by 11 days from 20 to 31 March 2025’. The respondent was invited to raise any objections within 14 days.g. The respondent raised objections to the claimant’s application to extend time and for reconsideration of the judgment by letter dated 25 June 2025. In support of their objection, the respondent provided the tribunal with a short bundle of correspondence from the claimant to the respondent primarily between 19 March 2025 and 31 March 2025.h. The claimant emailed the tribunal on 27 June 2025. This explained that the claimant had been detained under s.136 on 12 February 2025, and discharged on 13 March 2025, and explained that this was a period of 4 weeks rather than 3 weeks. The claimant explained that the decision she made to withdraw her claim was when she was unwell and when she was hearing voice. The claimant attached to the email the following documents:i. A letter from the Emergency Department of Whiston Hospital dated 13 February 2025. This letter identifies that the claimant had been referred by the police, and a decision was made that the claimant would be transferred to an alternative hospital as an inpatient. ii. A letter from Knowsley Mental Health Care hub dated 11 March 2025, which explains that the claimant’s referral will remain open on discharge. iii. A discharge letter dated 14 March 2025, from the Knowsley Resource and Recovery Centre. This identifies that the claimant was discharged from Grasmere Ward on 13 March 2025 at 16.13. This also refers to a diagnosis of ‘Depressive disorder with EUPD trait’. However, it also records that the psychotropic medications are currently optimised for the patient at present. And that should reassessment be warranted due to changes in mental state, as per patient request, then duloxetine must be avoided.[6]For the avoidance of doubt, although there is reference to reconsideration of the decision in tribunal documents, this has been treated as an application made pursuant to Rule 7(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 to have the original decision considered afresh by a Judge. And as this had been presented outside of the 14-day period to make such an application, any extension of time has been considered under Rule 5 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. However, EJ Butler also makes clear that this makes no substantive difference to the decision he was taking and has made. Had this been considered as an application for reconsideration, EJ Butler would still have had to decide whether to extend time for such an application pursuant to Rule 5 and would have reached the same decision for the same reasons and would have refused the extension application. The claimant has not been prejudiced through approaching this as an application under Rule 7(2) rather than an application for reconsideration.[7]All the documents referred to above have been considered by EJ Butler in deciding on this matter.[8]Employment Judge Butler does not consider that the claimant has provided sufficient evidence to support the extending of time to present her application until 31 March 2025, as required by REJ Franey. And so, in those circumstances, time is not being extended until 31 March 2025 for the claimant to present her application, it has been presented out of time and is therefore refused. In short, this means that the judgment dismissing her claim on withdrawal by Legal Officer Ellis remains valid.[9]EJ Butler first considers that REJ Franey was explicit in terms of what evidence the claimant needed to provide to support an application to extend time. In short, it was anything the claimant had that explained why such an extension should be granted. And second, and importantly, it needed to cover the period 20 March to 31 March 2025.[10]Turning to the evidence supplied. The claimant’s evidence that has been provided at its height identifies that the claimant was incapacitated and impaired from making any such application up to late afternoon on 13 March 2025. Given that this does cover the first week of the 14 days during which the claimant could make any application under Rule 7(2) (or for reconsideration), he does agree that an extension should be granted up until 28 March 2025. This accounts for the period of incapacity (at least insofar as being an inpatient and being an inpatient at the date the judgment was sent to her) and allows a further day for recovery/resettling following discharge (given that it was late afternoon when the claimant was discharged). However, the evidence does not support extending the time to make an application beyond 28 March 2025. The claimant was on medication, however, this appeared to be effective, according to the discharge letter of 14 March 2025. And further, the claimant could send emails to the respondent (albeit short in nature) on 19, 24, 30 and 31 March 2025. And therefore, there does not appear to be any significant impairment during this period that would have prevented the claimant from making her application sooner, and nothing that supports a longer extension of time.[11]In those circumstances, time to present the application is extended until 4pm on 28 March 2025. The claimant’s application was presented outside of this time period, and time is not being extended further to allow the application to be presented later. And it is therefore refused. The decision of Legal Officer Ellis on 06 March 2025 to dismiss the claim on withdrawal by the claimant remains valid. Approved by: