Mr M Ali v Uber London Ltd: 6002471/2025
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Strike out of claim[1]The claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The claim is therefore dismissed. Employment Judge Whittall Dated: 12 June 2025 Note Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.REASONS
[1]The claimant’s application dated 25 June 2025 was sent to me on 18 December 2025. The claimant’s application is for my judgment striking out the claim to be reconsidered on the basis that a) his claim was issued within a ‘just and equitable’ time period and b) he has a claim for wrongful dismissal for which the statutory time limit is six years.[2]The grounds for reconsideration are set out in Rule 68, namely that a judgment may be reconsidered when it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.[3]It is not in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment because there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The claimant’s ET1 claim, issued on 23 January 2025 was for unfair dismissal. The claimant had been dismissed on 1 August 2023.[4]The applicable test when considering an extension of time to issue a claim for unfair dismissal is whether it was issued within a time frame that was ‘reasonably applicable’ (section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. I gave oral reasons why I did not consider it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to issue his claim within the statutory time limit of three months. The ‘just and equitable’ test is applicable to Equaltiy Act 2010 claims and irrelevant here.[5]The primary statutory time limit is not six years for an unfair dismissal claim, which was the sole claim in the claimant’s ET1. Under section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 it is three months. Case Number: 6002471/2025 2[6]The claimant did not make an application to amend his claim and it is not in the interests of justice to reconsider this judgment to allow the claimant to make such an application as there is no reasonable prospects of success.[7]The tribunal also notes, it is in the public interest that there should be finality in litigation, and the interests of justice apply to both sides.[8]Accordingly, I refuse the application for reconsideration under Rule 70(2) because there is no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked. Approved by: