Mr T Pearson v H Smith and Interpath Advisory: 6020067/2024
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s application dated 20th May 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 9th May 2025 is refused.REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because:[1]Whilst it is noted that an email dated 8th April 2025 to which the Claimant makes reference is not on the Tribunal file, and was necessarily not therefore referred to me when I struck out the claim for effective non-compliance with Employment Judge Deeley’s rule 28 Order, I did consider the follow-up mail dated 11th April 2025.[2]Had there been within such an earlier email a substantive potential explanation for the long delay in bringing the claim, I might have fixed a hearing under rule 28 (3).[3]On reading the 11th April 2025 email there was, however, as set out in paragraph 3 of my judgment, no sufficient explanation as to why time should be extended for such an extensive delay.[4]Nor has the Claimant in his application of 20th May 2025 sought to repeat any substantive representations which he may have made earlier as to why time should be extended. 11.6C Judgment – Reconsideration refused – claimant - rule 72 Case No: 6020067/2024[5]Most significantly, however, the application fails to address the key reasoning at paragraph 13 of the judgment as to why it is indeed proportionate to dismiss the claim for an insufficient response to Judge Deeley’s Order.[6]Even if time were extended, and I repeat that as yet there are no good or sufficient reasons apparent as to why this should be, the claim for unfair dismissal has not been brought against the correct Respondent, which is the employer, and cannot now be so brought in any event as that company does not exist anymore.