Y Siad v Primark Stores Ltd: 6021748/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim of Unfair Dismissal has no reasonable prospect of success and is Struck Out.REASONS
[1]The Claimant made an application on 28 August 2025 (read in conjunction with his clarification dated 16 September 2025) for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 14 August 2025 (hearing 24 July 2025). In his application he referred to having depression and OCD and attached a document (called post preliminary hearing statement) headed ‘without prejudice’ and containing a section on ‘why do I think the case should resume’ including making the point that the Respondent had not objected to his resuming this claim because the respondent had gone ahead with the preliminary hearing on 24 July 2025. He asked for reconsideration by another judge but Rules 68-71 of the Tribunal Rules 2024 do not entitle a party to require reconsideration by a different judge.[2]The reconsideration request was referred to me on 5 November 2025. The reconsideration request was about my decision that the claimant had withdrawn his claim with legal effect, meaning that he could not re-start it again later when he changed his mind in the light of the receipt of documents in his other claim (6000201/2025 against Total Security).[3]A judgment can be reconsidered under Rule 68(1) Tribunal Rules 2024 where it is in the interests of justice to do so.[4]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, for the following reasons.[5]I decided that the Claimant had with legal effect withdrawn his claim. I considered his situation as an unrepresented party (para 5) but identified that he had on two occasions not said he had not intended to withdraw his Case Number: 6021748/2024 2 claim (paras 10,12). It is not the case that the Respondent by attending this hearing was implicitly accepting that it did not object to him resuming this claim – the Claimant had not responded to the Respondent’s two emails to the Tribunal; in fact therefore it was the other way round, it was the Claimant implicitly accepting that he had already withdrawn his claim with legal effect. He only asked to be able to rescind his withdrawal when he received a document (para 14) from the respondent in his other claim and expressed that he had changed his mind.[6]I explained why I considered that withdrawal to have been legally effective (paras 17-20). The Tribunal Rules 2024 do not provide for a ‘cooling off’ period when a claimant or respondent withdraws a claim or response. Provided a legally effective withdrawal is made, that withdrawal stands. The Claimant would think it very unfair if the Respondent was allowed to withdraw then reinstate its response, if it changed its mind. The same rule applies to both parties and is to give finality and avoid any party chopping and changing between pursuing a claim/response and not pursuing it.[7]The Claimant has not advanced any new argument as to why the judgment should be reconsidered, only that he disagrees with it. His points about why he changed his mind on receipt of new documents are already addressed in the judgment. He has not provided any new material or arguments to support why it is in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment, even if he feels as he has set out in his statement that he meets the definition of disability and was the subject of discrimination. A claimant or respondent can legally effectively withdraw a claim or response even if it is a strong claim or response because it is up to the party to decide whether to proceed or not.[8]I took into account (paras 5,20) that he is an unrepresented party and that he has a mental health condition but his argument was that the need to resume his case was because he had received a new document ie a change of mind. That change of mind did not mean his previous withdrawal had not had legal effect. Employment Judge Reid Dated: 13 November 2025 Case Number: 6021748/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Y Siad Respondent: Primark Stores Ltd NOTICE OF CORRECTION Under Rule 67, the reconsideration judgment sent to the parties on 13 November 2025, is corrected as set out in block type in paras 6 and 7 of the corrected judgment. Approved by: Employment Judge Reid Dated: 14 November 2025 Important note to the Claimant(s) and Respondent(s): Any dates for asking for written reasons, applying for reconsideration or appealing against the judgment are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date the original judgment or reasons were sent, as explained in the letter that sent the original judgment. Case Number: 6021748/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Y Siad Respondent: Primark Stores Ltd CORRECTED JUDGMENT (Reconsideration) Note to parties: the corrected paragraphs are paras 6 and 7. The correction is to remove irrelevant matters included in error. There is no change to the outcome. The claimant’s application dated 28 August 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 14 August 2025 is refused.[1]The Claimant made an application on 28 August 2025 (read in conjunction with his clarification dated 16 September 2025) for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 14 August 2025 (hearing 24 July 2025). In his application he referred to having depression and OCD and attached a document (called post preliminary hearing statement) headed ‘without prejudice’ and containing a section on ‘why do I think the case should resume’ including making the point that the Respondent had not objected to his resuming this claim because the respondent had gone ahead with the preliminary hearing on 24 July 2025. He asked for reconsideration by another judge but Rules 68-71 of the Tribunal Rules 2024 do not entitle a party to require reconsideration by a different judge.[2]The reconsideration request was referred to me on 5 November 2025. The reconsideration request was about my decision that the claimant had withdrawn his claim with legal effect, meaning that he could not re-start it again later when he changed his mind in the light of the receipt of documents in his other claim (6000201/2025 against Total Security). Case Number: 6021748/2024 2[3]A judgment can be reconsidered under Rule 68(1) Tribunal Rules 2024 where it is in the interests of justice to do so.[4]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, for the following reasons.[5]I decided that the Claimant had with legal effect withdrawn his claim. I considered his situation as an unrepresented party (para 5) but identified that he had on two occasions not said he had not intended to withdraw his claim (paras 10,12). It is not the case that the Respondent by attending this hearing was implicitly accepting that it did not object to him resuming this claim – the Claimant had not responded to the Respondent’s two emails to the Tribunal; in fact therefore it was the other way round, it was the Claimant implicitly accepting that he had already withdrawn his claim with legal effect. He only asked to be able to rescind his withdrawal when he received a document (para 14) from the respondent in his other claim and expressed that he had changed his mind.[6]I explained why I considered that withdrawal to have been legally effective (paras 17-20). The Tribunal Rules 2024 do not provide for a ‘cooling off’ period when a claimant withdraws a claim. Provided a legally effective withdrawal is made, that withdrawal stands. The rule is intended to give certainty.[7]The Claimant has not advanced any new argument as to why the judgment should be reconsidered, only that he disagrees with it. His points about why he changed his mind on receipt of new documents are already addressed in the judgment. He has not provided any new material or arguments to support why it is in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment, even if he feels as he has set out in his statement that he meets the definition of disability and was the subject of discrimination. A claimant can legally effectively withdraw a claim even if it is a strong claim because it is up to a claimant to decide whether to proceed or not.[8]I took into account (paras 5,20) that he is an unrepresented party and that he has a mental health condition but his argument was that the need to resume his case was because he had received a new document ie a change of mind. That change of mind did not mean his previous withdrawal had not had legal effect.