Mr I Blake-Mills v G4S Care & Justice Services (UK) Ltd: 1305964/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1305964/2024
Between
Mr I Blake-MillsClaimantG4S Care & Justice Services (UK) LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge AkhtarDate 22 January 2026
JUDGMENT
The respondent’s application dated 15 December 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 10 December 2025 is refused.
REASONS
[1]I have undertaken preliminary consideration of the respondent's application for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s judgment of 10 December. That application is contained in a 3 page document attached to an email dated 15 December 2025.
The Law
[2]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to appeal on a point of law) a decision of an Employment Tribunal is final. The test under rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“the Rules”) is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment.[3]Rule 70(2) of the Rules, empowers me to refuse the application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[4]The importance of finality was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714 in July 2016 where Elias LJ said that: “the discretion to act in the interests of justice is not open-ended; it should be exercised in a principled way, and the earlier case law cannot be ignored. In particular, the courts have emphasised the importance of finality (Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395) which militates against the discretion being exercised too readily; and in Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 384 Mummery J held that the failure of a party's representative to draw attention to a particular argument will not generally justify granting a review.”[5]Similarly in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16 the EAT chaired by Simler P said in paragraphs 34 & 35 that: “34. …….a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to re-litigate matters that have already been litigated, or to reargue matters in a different way or by adopting points previously omitted. There is an underlying public policy principle in all judicial proceedings that there should be finality in litigation, and reconsideration applications are a limited exception to that rule. They are not a means by which to have a second bite at the cherry, nor are they intended to provide parties with the opportunity of a rehearing at which the same evidence and the same arguments can be rehearsed but with different emphasis or additional evidence that was previously available being tendered…...” “35. Where, as here, a matter has been fully ventilated and properly argued, and in the absence of any identifiable administrative error or event occurring after the hearing that requires a reconsideration in the interests of justice, any asserted error of law is to be corrected on appeal and not through the back door by way of a reconsideration application. It seems to me that the Judge was entitled to conclude that reconsideration would not result in a variation or revocation of the decision in this case and that the Judge did not make any error of law in refusing reconsideration accordingly.”[6]In common with all powers under the 2024 Rules, preliminary consideration under rule 70 (2) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in rule 2, namely to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues, and avoiding delay. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication. The Application[7]The application for reconsideration is made on two grounds, firstly that I made an error in law in applying the burden of proof under Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the finding of harassment related to race at Paragraph 4 of the record of judgment. For ease of reference, I found that the question “Are you a drug dealer? asked of the claimant by the investigating officer was an act of harassment related to race.[8]The second reconsideration ground is that I reached my conclusion perversely, in light of my negative findings in respect of 2 of the 3 allegations of harassment and without adequately considering the totality of the undisputed evidence.[9]In respect of the first ground for reconsideration, I do not accept that I made any error of law in reaching my decision, however, if the respondent contends there has been an error of law, then the appropriate avenue to challenge this is by way of appeal rather than a reconsideration application.[20]In respect of the second ground for reconsideration, I reminded myself that reconsideration is not a right or opportunity to remake the arguments that have been made, or could have been made, at the original hearing. I find that the points raised by the respondent in respect of evidence not being considered are attempts to re-open issues of fact on which I heard evidence from both sides and made a determination. In that sense they represent a “second bite of the cherry” which undermines the principle of finality. Such attempts have a reasonable prospect of resulting in the decision being varied or revoked only if the Tribunal has missed something important, or if there is new evidence available which could not reasonably have been put forward at the hearing. I do not find that to be the case here.
Conclusion
[22]Having considered all the points made by the respondent, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The points of significance were considered and addressed at the hearing. The application for reconsideration is therefore refused. Approved on: 22 January 2026