Mrs D Peters v Star Linen Hire & Laundry Services Ltd: 1405493/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1405493/2023
Between
Mrs D PetersClaimantStar Linen Hire & Laundry Services LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge BaxDate 8 November 2024
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s application dated 29 October 2024 for reconsideration of the judgment prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
REASONS
[1]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent between 21 November 2022 and 26 May 2023 as a laundry worker. The Claimant commenced the Early Conciliation process with ACAS on 11 September 2023. The Early Conciliation Certificate was issued on 19 September 2023 and the claim was presented on 13 October 2023.[2]A Preliminary Hearing took place on 10 April 2024 before Employment Judge Bax. At the hearing, Employment Judge Bax heard an amendment application and allowed the Claimant to amend the claim to include constructive dismissal. The issues in relation to the claim were discussed and are set out in the Case Management Order from that hearing, dated 10 April 2024 and sent to the parties on 11 April 2024.[3]A further Public Preliminary Hearing was listed to consider the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction regarding time limits and an amendment application. The hearing was listed for three hours and took place on 2 October 2024.[4]Mr Egan-Ronayne raised at the beginning of the hearing that he and the Claimant did not have a copy of the Preliminary Hearing Bundle. Due to issues regarding electronic file size, despite numerous breaks, the bundle was not provided until 11.30. Since half the hearing time had been lost there was not sufficient time to deal with the amendment application. It was agreed with the parties that jurisdiction would be determined. In particular, the Claimant did not raise an objection during the hearing that the hearing was no longer fair because of the difficulties regarding access to the Hearing Bundle.[5]I determined that:(i) the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit; and(ii) that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim was therefore dismissed in a reserved judgment dated 4 October 2024 and sent to the parties on 18 October 2024. The law on reconsideration[6]Rules 70 to 73 of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 2013, make provision for the reconsideration of tribunal judgments as follows: “70. Principles A Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. On reconsideration, the decision (“the original decision”) may be confirmed, varied or revoked. If it is revoked it may be taken again. 71. Application Except where it is made in the course of a hearing, an application for reconsideration shall be presented in writing (and copied to all the other parties) within 14 days of the date on which the written record, or other written communication, of the original decision was sent to the parties or within 14 days of the date that the written reasons were sent (if later) and shall set out why reconsideration of the original decision is necessary. 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 views on the application.(2) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (1), the original decision shall be considered at a hearing unless the Employment Judge considers, having regard to any response to the notice provided under paragraph (1), that hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice. If the reconsideration proceeds without a hearing the parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to make further written representations.”[7]Under these rules, the Tribunal therefore has discretion to reconsider a judgment if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so.[8]Under rule 72(1), the judge must dismiss the application if they consider that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. It is a mandatory requirement for a judge to determine whether there are reasonable prospects of a judgment being varied or revoked before seeking the other party's response and the views of the parties as to whether the matter can be determined without a hearing, potentially giving any provisional view, and deciding how the reconsideration application will be determined for the purposes of rule 72(2): T.W. White & Sons Ltd v White, UKEAT/0022/21.[9]If the judge considers there are reasonable prospects, they must (under rule 72(2)) consider whether a hearing is necessary in the interests of justice to enable the application to be determined. A hearing would, unless not practicable, be a hearing of the full tribunal that made the original decision (rule 72(3)). If, however, the judge decides that it is in the interests of justice to determine the application without a hearing under rule 72(2), then they must give the parties a reasonable opportunity to make further written representations.[10]In Outasight VB Ltd v Brown UKEAT/0253/14 the EAT held (at [46-48]) that the Rule 70 ground for reconsidering Judgments (the interests of justice) did not represent a broadening of discretion from the provisions of Rule 34 contained in the replaced 2004 rules. HHJ Eady QC (as she then was) explained that the previous specified categories under the old rules were only examples of where it would be in the interests of justice to reconsider. The 2014 rules remove the unnecessary specified grounds, leaving only what was in truth always the fundamental consideration: the interests of justice. This means that decisions under the old rules remain pertinent under the new rules.[11]The key point is that it must be in the interests of justice to reconsider a judgment. That means that there must be something about the case that makes it necessary to go back and reconsider, for example a new piece of evidence that could not have been produced at the original hearing or a mistake as to the law. It is not the purpose of the reconsideration provisions to give an unsuccessful party an opportunity to reargue his or her case. If there has been a hearing at which both parties have been in attendance, where all material evidence had been available for consideration, where both parties have had their opportunity to present their evidence and their arguments the interests of justice are that there should be finality in litigation. An unsuccessful litigant in such circumstances, without something more, is not permitted to simply reargue his or her case, to have ‘a second bite at the cherry’ (per Phillips J in Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] IRLR 277).[12]The expression ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ does not give rise to an unfettered discretion to reopen matters. 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.”[13]Rules 71 and 72 give the Tribunal a broad discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a decision is appropriate. Guidance for Tribunals on how to approach applications for reconsideration was given by Simler P in the case of Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0002/16/DA. Paragraphs 34 and 35 provide as follows: “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 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. Tribunals have a wide discretion whether or not to order reconsideration. 35. Where […] 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.” Assessment of the application under Rule 72(1)[14]The Claimant’s application for reconsideration sets out a number of points based on which the Claimant states that the hearing was unfair and the reserved judgment is unfair and requests a re-hearing of the evidence.[15]As set out in Liddington, a 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 adopting points previously omitted. Any asserted error of law is to be corrected on appeal.[16]In relation to the delay in the Claimant accessing the hearing bundle rendering the hearing unfair, this was not raised at the time of the hearing, in fact all parties agreed that the hearing should continue.[17]The amendment application was not dealt with, but it was agreed by the Claimant at the hearing that there were no alleged acts which took place later than those which were dealt with in relation to considering whether the claim was out of time.[18]The other matters raised in the reconsideration application were all matters raised at the hearing and considered in reaching the conclusion set out in the reserved judgment.[19]Having carefully considered the Claimant’s application and bearing in mind the importance of finality in litigation and the interests of both parties, I am not satisfied that there is any reasonable prospect of the Judgment or any part of it being varied or revoked.