Mr H Bajwa v Children With Cancer UK Ltd and Mr G Murphy: 2201675/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2201675/2024
Between
Mr H BajwaClaimantChildren With Cancer UK Ltd and Mr G MurphyRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Isaacson’s Case Management OrdersDate 25 November 2025
REASONS
[2]On 14 October 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the Claimant as follows: For the reasons set out in the First Respondent’s correspondence of 26 September 2025 and taking into account paragraphs 22 – 38 of Employment Judge Isaacson’s Case Management Orders of 21 July 2025 under the headings “Case Summary” and “Background”, Employment Judge Woodhead is considering striking out the claim because it is not being actively pursued. The Claimant continually fails to comply with case management orders. If the Claimant wishes to object to this proposal, they should give their reasons in writing or request a hearing at which they can make them no later than 4pm on the fifth working day (21 October 2025) after the date on which this correspondence is sent to the Claimant by the Tribunal.[3]As at the date of this judgment the Tribunal has received no reply from the Claimant and on 19 November 2025 the First Respondent (in correspondence copied to the Claimant and Second Respondent) raised it for my urgent consideration (there being a preliminary hearing listed for 5 December 2025 “the Hearing”).[4]I have concluded that it is in the interests of justice to strike out the Claim because it has not been actively pursued. I have asked the Tribunal administration to vacate the Hearing and the final hearing listed for 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 December 2026. 1 of 2 Case Number: 2201675/2024
The Law
[5]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to appeal on a point of law) a decision of an Employment Tribunal is final. The test is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment (Rule 68).[6]Rule 70(2) empowers me to refuse the application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[7]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.”[8]Similarly in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16 the EAT chaired by Simler P said in paragraph 34 that: “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 by 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.”[9]In common with all powers under the Rules, preliminary consideration under Rule 70 (2) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in Rule 3. The Application[10]I apologise to the parties for the delay in considering the application for reconsideration.[11]As I note above, preliminary assessment of an application for reconsideration must be carried out in accordance with Rule 3 (which requires that cases are dealt with fairly and justly). This includes dealing with cases in ways which are 3 of 4 proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues, and avoiding delay. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication.[12]I have given full and proper consideration to the grounds set out by the Claimant but have concluded that they are matters that should have been raised by the Claimant, with appropriate evidence, much earlier and during the substantial period of time between the July 2025 hearing and November 2025.[13]I mean no disrespect to the Claimant in giving these brief reasons for my decision on his application. I have had to take into account the need for proportionality (not only as regards the parties and issues in this claim but also as regards the interests of the many other Tribunal service users).
Conclusion
[14]Having considered all the points made by the Claimant I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration is refused in particular because of the importance of the principle of the finality of litigation.