Mr A Edmunds v Bryn Afon Community Housing Ltd: 1600339/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1600339/2024

Between

Mr A EdmundsClaimant

Bryn Afon Community Housing LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge R Brace

Mr J Williams (instructed by Solicitor) for claimant

Mr G Probert (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 17 June 2024

JUDGMENT

By consent, the name of the Respondent is amended to Bryn Afon Community Housing Limited The claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The claim is therefore dismissed.

REASONS

[1]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to an appeal on a point of law) a decision of the Employment Tribunal is final.

[2]Rule 70 ET Rules 2013 sets out the test on reconsideration which is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment. Pursuant to Rule 72(1) I may refuse an application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.

[3]The importance of finality was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor

[2016] EWCA Civ 714

and in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust

EAT/0002/16

Simler P said that a ‘request for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to re-litigate matters that have already been litigated, or 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 of litigation, and reconsideration applications are a limited exception to that rule. They are not a means by which to have a Case No: 1600339/2024 second bite of 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”

[4]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because:

[5]Having revieweda. the documents from the 48-page bundle of documents (“Bundle”) that was provided at the preliminary hearing;

b. the comments made by the Claimant in his ET1 at page [10] of the Bundle;

c. the witness statements of the Claimant at page [34] and [40] of the Bundle;

d. the witness statement of Mr Neil Jones (GMB Workplace Organiser) at page [48] of the Bundle; and

e. her notes of the evidence given at the hearing on 17 June 2024 (by both the Claimant and Mr Jones,) and of the submissions made on behalf of the Claimant; Employment Judge Brace is satisfied that the letter received on 1 July 2024 contains not only evidence which she took into account in reaching her decision, but also additional evidence which was not put before her at the hearing on 1 July 2024 (either in written statement or in oral evidence). She is also satisfied that, despite having the opportunity to put such matters at the hearing, and being represented by a solicitor at the time, the Claimant did not take that opportunity.

[6]The purpose of the reconsideration is not to provide the parties with the opportunity of adducing further evidence and there is a strong public interest that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation.