Mr G Roberts v Penrhyndeudraeth Town Council: 1602287/2023
JUDGMENT
The complaints of unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. These complaints are therefore dismissed.REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 16 February 2026 the claimant applied for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Judgment sent to the parties on 12 February 2026. In that Judgment the Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (s.15 of the Equality Act 2010) and of victimisation (s.27 of the Equality Act 2010) because they were not well founded.Relevant Law
[2]An Employment Tribunal has a power to reconsider a judgment “where it is necessary in the interests of justice”. On reconsideration the decision may be confirmed, varied or revoked and, if revoked, may be taken again (Rule 68 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“the 2024 Rules”)).[3]An application for reconsideration must be presented within 14 days of the date on which the judgment was sent to the parties or the date that written reasons were sent (if later) (rule 69 of the 2024 Rules).[4]Applications are subject to a preliminary consideration by an employment judge. They are to be refused if the judge considers there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked (rule 70(2) of the 2024 Rules). If not refused, the application may be considered at a hearing or, if the Tribunal considers it in the interests of justice, without a hearing (rules 70(3)-(5) of the 2024 Rules).[5]The “interests of justice” allows for a broad discretion. That discretion must be exercised judicially, which means having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the reconsideration, but also to the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation (Outasight VB Ltd v Brown [2015] ICR D11, EAT para 33). Decision on the claimant’s application[6]The claimant’s application was made in time.[7]The claimant’s application asserts that the Tribunal erred in not “enforcing” the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972 (s.99 and Schedule 12) and the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (“the two Acts”). The claimant asserts that he had a “legitimate expectation” that the Tribunal would enforce that legislation under s.2 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. He also asserts that the Tribunal did not comply with its statutory interpretative obligations under s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the two Acts.[8]The claimant’s application does not explain why it is said that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to “enforce” the two Acts. On the face of it, there is nothing in either of the two Acts which give the Tribunal jurisdiction to enforce them.[9]The application also does not explain how the Tribunal’s decision would have been different if it had “enforced” the two Acts.[10]The claimant’s application does not explain how the Tribunal has failed to apply the statutory interpretative obligation in Section 3. More importantly, it does not explain how doing so would have resulted in different decisions to those reached in the Judgment.[11]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and the application to reconsider the Judgment is refused. Date: 1 April 2026 Approved by