Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 6 June 2023. The respondent has failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge has decided that a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it, in accordance with rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The respondent has made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and must pay the claimant £3,277.66.
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 Case No: 1601118/2023 ‘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 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 I am satisfied that the Claimant brought proceedings against Wakeup Bristol Limited who, the Claimant indicated in the ET1 and more detailed particulars attached to his ET1 claim form, was his employer.[5]Further, Conor Rashid is stated as having been a director of that Respondent only and it was not asserted by the Claimant that Mr Rashid was in fact the Claimant’s employer.[6]Claims for unpaid wages brought as unlawful deductions under the Employment Rights Act 1996 can only be brought against the employer.[7]There is a strong public interest that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation.