Anna MunkevicsClaimantEcho Personnel LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge GidneyIn person for claimantIn person for respondentDate 1 April 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s total losses arising are assessed in the sum of £27,334.80, as set out in the Remedy Calculation Summary below.
REASONS
[1]By the Tribunal’s Judgment delivered orally on 7th February 2025 (‘the Remedy Judgment’) the Tribunal determined the appropriate compensation due to the Claimant following the Liability Judgment delivered on 21st January 2025 in the sum of £27,334.80. Case No. 1306243/2023[2]By email dated 11th February 2025 the Respondent asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Remedy Judgment.[3]The Tribunal has power to reconsider any judgement where it is necessary and in the interests of justice to do so. Rule 72 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure sets out the process for reconsideration requests. It states: 72 Process.(1) An Employment Judge shall consider any application made under Rule 71. If the Judge considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked (including unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused) the application shall be refused and the Tribunal shall inform the parties of the refusal. Otherwise, the Tribunal shall send a notice to the parties setting a time limit for any response to the application by the other parties and seeking the views of the parties on whether the application can be determined without a hearing. The notice may set out the Judge’s provisional view on the application.(2) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (1), the original decision shall be reconsidered at a hearing unless the Employment Judge considers, having regard to any response to the notice provided under paragraph (1) that a hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice. If the reconsideration proceeds without a hearing, the party should be given a reasonable opportunity to make further written representations.(3) Where practicable, the consideration under paragraph (1) shall be made by the Employment Judge who made the original decision. Or, as the case may be, chaired the full Tribunal which made it; and any reconsideration under paragraph (2) shall be made by the Judge or was the case may be, the full Tribunal which made the original decision. Where that is not practicable the President, Vice President or a Regional Employment Judge shall appoint another Employment Judge to deal with the application or, in the case of a decision of a full Tribunal, shall either direct the reconsideration be by such members of the original Tribunal as remain available to reconstitute the Tribunal in whole or in part.[4]The Respondent’s application for a Reconsideration of the Remedy Judgment consisted of two submissions, as follows: Case No. 1306243/2023 4.1. A value for lost Bonus was added to the Claimant’s losses, notwithstanding the Judge confirming at the Remedy Hearing that the bonus claim had been dismissed; 4.2. The value of interest is incorrect. The Judgment (including interest) at the Remedy Hearing was £25,109.92 yet the amount stated in the Judgment is £27,334.80.[5]In Trimble v Supertravel Ltd [1982] IRLR 451 the Employment Appeal Tribunal stated, ‘If the matter has been ventilated and properly argued at the original hearing, than errors of law of that kind fall to be corrected by this Appeal Tribunal’. The EAT emphasised that the reconsideration procedure is there so that where there has been an oversight or some procedural occurrence, such that a party cannot be said to have had a fair opportunity to present their arguments on a point of substance, they can bring the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication. An application for reconsideration under Rule 70 must include a weighing of the injustice to the Applicant if the reconsideration is refused, and the injustice to the Respondent, if it is granted.[6]It is also necessary to give weight to the public interest in the finality of litigation: Phipps v Primary Education Services Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 652. It is valuable to draw attention to the importance of the finality of litigation and the view that it would be unjust to give the losing party a second bite of the cherry: Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council v Marsden [2010] ICR 743.[7]The factors to be considered in determining whether it is in the interests of justice to reconsider a decision can still include the specific grounds identified in the 2004 Rules of Procedure, namely(i) whether decision was wrongly made as a result of an administrative error;(ii) where a party did not receive notice of the proceedings leading to the decision,(iii) where the decision was made in the absence of a party; and(iv) when evidence had become available since the conclusion of the hearing which could not have been reasonably known or foreseen at the time.[8]I have considered the Claimant’s reconsideration request by section, as follows: Case No. 1306243/2023 8.1. Bonus: A very similar point to this has been raised by the Respondent in its request for a Reconsideration of the Liability Judgment. The Respondent asserts that a bonus could not have been achieved for 4 hours work, 2 days a week, which was the Claimant’s agreed temporary reduced hours. The Respondent queries why a bonus payment was made after the Tribunal determined that no bonus would be paid for the period that the Claimant would have returned on reduced hours. This point is misconceived as a bonus was not sought for that period, or awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Claimant would have returned on part time hours until 3rd July 2023 before reverting to her full time hours. No bonus was awarded for the period of her part time hours (1st May to 3rd July). The Tribunal found that once the Claimant had returned to full time hours on 3rd June, she would have been entitled to a bonus for the rest of the loss period, ie to 15th November 2023. 8.2. Interest: The total award due to the Claimant, as at the date of the Reemdy Decision was £25,109.92. This is the figure set out in the Remedy Calculation Sheet, which was annexed to the Judgment. The Judgment itself recorded that the total Judgment sum was £27,334.80, which was an administrative error. Judgments made as a result of administrative errors are properly to be resolved as a reconsideration. Given that this is an administrative error, I grant the Respondent’s reconsideration request to replace the Judgment sum of £27,334.80 with the lower Judgment sum of £25,109.92.[9]In all of the circumstances it is my judgment that: 9.1. there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked in respect of the bonus submission. That request is dismissed; 9.2. The Judgment sum of £27,334.80 was incorrect and an amended Judgment in the sum of £25,109.82 will be promulgated.