Mrs S Jones v Wellcome Care Homes Ltd: 1600157/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1600157/2025
Between
Mrs S JonesClaimantWellcome Care Homes LtdRespondentDate 8 October 2025
JUDGMENT
The respondent’s application dated 25 June 2025 ( and referred to Judge Moore on 1 October 2025) for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 11 June 2025 is refused.
REASONS
[1]The Tribunal’s power to reconsider judgments are contained within Rules 69-71 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Rule 69 provides it may confirm, vary or revoke the judgment where it is necessary in the interest of justice. The process is contained with Rule 70.[2]The Tribunal must follow Rule 70 in the order provided for within that rule (TW White & Sons Ltd v White UKEAT 0022/21). In exercising the power the Tribunal must do so in accordance with the overriding objective.[3]In Ministry of Justice v Burton and another [2016] ICR 1128, Elias LJ approved the comments of Underhill J in Newcastle upon Tyne City Council v Marsden [2010] ICR 743, 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. Further, 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.[4]In Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0002/16 Simler P held: “..a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to relitigate 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, and the opportunity for appellate intervention in relation to a refusal to order reconsideration is accordingly limited. [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.”[5]Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council v Marsden UKEAT/393/09 was a case where claimant had been advised not to attend a pre hearing review to determine whether he was a disabled person. The judge dismissed the claim on the basis the claimant had failed to provide evidence. On a later application for reconsideration, the decision was revoked on the basis that counsel for the claimant had misled the tribunal. This decision was upheld by Underhill, J who discussed the importance of finality of litigation at paragraph 17: “The principles that underlie such decisions as Flint and Lindsay remain valid, and although those cases should not be regarded as establishing propositions of law giving a conclusive answer in every apparently similar case, they are valuable as drawing attention to those underlying principles. In particular, the weight attached in many of the previous cases to the importance of finality in litigation or, as Phillips J put it in Flint (at a time when the phrase was fresher than it is now), the view that it is unjust to give the losing party a second bite of the cherry seems to me entirely appropriate: justice requires an equal regard to the interests and legitimate expectations of both parties, and a successful party should in general be entitled to regard a tribunals decision on a substantive issue as final (subject, of course, to appeal)”[6]In Ladd v Marshall 1954 3 All ER 745, CA the Court of Appeal established that, in order to justify the reception of fresh evidence, it is necessary to show:• that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial:• the evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive:• the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, although it need not be incontrovertible.[7]Outasight VB Limited v Brown UKEAT/0253/14 is a case about reconsiderations where a party wishes to adduce fresh evidence. In this case the EAT held that the approach in Ladd v Marshall would in most cases encapsulate what is meant by “the interests of justice”. There might be cases where the interest of justice would permit fresh evidence to be adduced notwithstanding that the principles laid down in Ladd v Marshall were not strictly met.[8]The application was made on two grounds: a) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact affecting the outcome and; b) A procedural irregularity occurred as the respondent had a lack of legal representation.[9]The supporting grounds were purported to be set out in an accompanying document.[10]That accompanying document did not set out any specific details of the above two grounds. It contained no details about what error of law was said to have been made. The whole focus was on the respondent’s lack of legal representation. This was at all material times the respondent’s choice. The respondent: a) Previously applied for a postponement of the hearing on 7 May 2025 in order to secure legal representation. This was refused on the basis there was sufficient time was available to have done so before the hearing on 9 June 2025; b) Failed to comply with the orders of Judge Williams dated 10 March 2025 to disclose documents and exchange witness statements. The order included sources of advice that the respondent could have accessed; c) Had been on notice of the hearing since 25 April 2025 and notice of the claim since 29 May 2024.[11]Essentially what the respondent was saying was they should have another chance to defend the claim with legal representation. This is not a reasonable ground on which to base an application for reconsideration. It would be wholly unjust to permit the respondent to do so in light of the above circumstances. There is no good reason before me as to why the respondent was unable to secure legal representation other than this was a matter of personal choice.[12]Further, the Tribunal deals with many cases where parties represent themselves. The respondent had every opportunity to advance their defence to the claim and did so at the hearing, being permitted to adduce documents and call witnesses notwithstanding their failure to comply with orders.[13]For these reasons to request is refused at the very first stage as the application contains no reasonable grounds for reconsideration. Date: 8 October 2025 Approved by