皇冠体育app

Case No: 3202358/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss R M Veszeli Respondent: Travelodge Hotels Ltd JUDGMENT 皇冠体育app claimant鈥檚 application dated 9 July 2024 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on DATE is refused. REASONS 皇冠体育appre is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because 1. 皇冠体育app application does not provide any new evidence in relation to the sole issue which was determined at the hearing, namely whether it was reasonably practicable for Miss Veszeli鈥檚 claim to be presented within the statutory limitation period and, if not, whether it was presented within such further time as was reasonable. 2. If there have been further alleged acts against other Claimants who remain in the employment of the Respondent, those matters can be pursued in respect of the ongoing claims brought by those Claimants. 皇冠体育appse do not have any bearing on the outcome of the hearing on 21 June 2024. 3. 皇冠体育app judgment does not prevent the Claimant from pursuing any rights she may have in respect of personal injury by way of civil proceedings, if so advised. 4. 皇冠体育app application is seeking to go behind the decisions taken on 21 June 2024 and at the previous preliminary hearing on 20 May 2024, and many of the points raised in the documents provided by the Claimant have already been considered at one or both of those hearings, in so far as they were relevant. 5. Issues between the parties in relation to the exchange of documents in July 2024 can only relate to the separate ongoing proceedings brought by the Claimant鈥檚 two former colleagues, as the Claimant鈥檚 claims have been dismissed. 皇冠体育appy have no bearing on the outcome of the hearing on 21 June 2024 in relation to this claim. 6. 皇冠体育app Claimant did not raise any issue at the hearing in relation to the 53 page bundle provided for the hearing. In any event, most of the documents were either Tribunal correspondence or sick notes, which would have been familiar to the Claimant. Case No: 3202358/2023 7. 皇冠体育app Claimant鈥檚 representative confirmed at the outset of the hearing that she was well aware of the issue which was to be determined at the hearing on 21 June 2024. She agreed to the procedure adopted, which was for the Claimant to provide oral evidence at the hearing (through an interpreter), having failed to provide a witness statement as ordered on 20 May 2024. 8. 皇冠体育app Claimant鈥檚 claim was dismissed for reasons given to the parties orally at the hearing. It was not because 鈥渉er testimony against Walthamstow Travelodge contains damning evidence鈥�, but was because her claim was not presented within the statutory time limits despite it being reasonably practicable for it to have been so presented. Employment Judge Suzanne Palmer 27 August 2024

First published.