Miss N Sandy v Anchor Trust: 2206985/2017
REASONS
[1]By letter presented to the Tribunal on 23 July 2018, the Claimant applied for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 9 July 2018.[2]Under Rule 72(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, such an application is to be refused, without the need for a hearing, if an Employment Judge considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[3]The (reserved) judgment sent to the parties on 9 July 2018 was unusual in that it did not contain the reasons for the tribunal’s decision (a footnote to the judgment explained that due to administrative problems it had not been possible for the full reasons to be typed by that stage and that these would be sent later but that, so as not to keep the parties waiting to hear the outcome of the case any longer, the judge had decided to send the judgment containing the outcome to the parties at that point). The full written reasons for the decision were duly sent to the parties on 4 September 2018. Therefore, the application for reconsideration was made before the claimant had had sight of the tribunal’s reasons for its decision.[4]The application for reconsideration for the most part makes evidential points. Many of these are covered in the tribunal’s written reasons. To the extent that they are not, they were either not relevant to the determination of the issues which the tribunal needed to determine or the points were not made at the original hearing. The points in the application Case No: 2206985/2017 for reconsideration which were made at the original hearing were either ones which the tribunal did not accept or would not make any difference to the decisions made by the tribunal. Essentially, the points in the application for reconsideration attempt to re-litigate evidential matters which either were or could have been addressed at the original hearing.[5]There is therefore no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[6]The application for reconsideration is therefore refused.