Mr A Alexander v The London Borough of Croydon: 2302017/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2302017/2023
Between
Mr A AlexanderClaimantThe London Borough of CroydonRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Musgrave-CohenIn person for claimantMiss A Ahmed (instructed by counsel) for respondentMs. A. Ahmad (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 14 July 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Respondent’s application to strike out the Claimant’s claims against it is dismissed. The Tribunal is not satisfied that either the claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the claims under the Equality Act 2010 against the Respondent have no reasonable prospect of success because the claims (or any part of them) have been presented outside the applicable statutory time limit.[2]The Respondent’s application for a deposit order against the Claimant is dismissed. The Tribunal is not satisfied that either the claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the claims under the Equality Act 2010 have little reasonable prospect of success because the claims (or any part of them) have been presented outside the applicable statutory time limit. A separate Case Management Order sets out the steps that the parties are required to take to finalise the preparation for the final hearing. The reasons for this decision were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless they are asked for by a written request presented by any party within 14 days of this written judgment being sent to the parties. Case Number: 2302017/2023 Approved by: Employment Judge Musgrave-Cohen Dated: 13 March 2025 Sent to the parties on: 14 March 2025 For the Tribunal Office: P Wing Case Number: 2302017/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr. A. Alexander Respondent: London Borough of Croydon Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal On: 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 14th July 2025 Before: Employment Judge Sudra Sitting with non-legal members Mr. W. Dixon. and Ms. E. Whitlam Appearances: Claimant: In-Person (unrepresented) Respondent: Ms. A. Ahmad of Counsel[1]The Respondent applied, under Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision.[2]The Claimant, on 10th August 2025, has applied for a reconsideration of the judgment as he says: ‘It is not that I disagree with the judgment or decision that I feel that it would be in the interests of justice for the original decision to be reconsidered, it’s because I feel that for one person, whistleblowing on what they believe to be crimes against our society, representing themselves, it should be at the very least, considered to be important to at least have had the respondent, especially a local authority, with the funds and mite (sic) of legal representation at its disposure, should at least be expected to behave fairly throughout disclosure, and if they can’t, then the response should be struck out.’ Case Number: 2302017/2023 2 of 3
REASONS
[3]The Claimant explicitly stated in his reconsideration application that ‘It is not that I disagree with the judgment or decision.’ Rather, it appears that the Claimant’s grounds for reconsideration are that there was a failure by the Respondent to comply with Case Management Orders made by this Tribunal prior to the Final Hearing.[4]Whilst it is not disputed that there was delay by the Respondent in complying with Case Management Orders (specifically that the Respondent did not submit its witness statements until nearly four-weeks after the prescribed deadline and mishandled preparing the file of documents for the Final Hearing) the effects of the Respondent’s tardy compliance were mitigated by the date of the Final Hearing. Therefore, it was possible to have a fair hearing within the trial window.
Relevant Law
[5]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. 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.’[6]Similarly, in Liddington v. 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16 the EAT chaired by Simler P (as she then was) 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.’ Case Number: 2302017/2023 3 of 3[7]In common with all powers under the 2024 Rules, reconsideration under rule 70 must be conducted in accordance with the Overriding Objective which appears in rule 3, namely, to deal with cases fairly and justly. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication.[8]Reconsideration is not a means by which to have a second bite at the cherry, or is it 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]Tribunals have a wide discretion whether or not to order reconsideration. Where a matter has been fully ventilated and properly argued, and in the absence of any identifiable administrative error or event occurring after the hearing that requires a reconsideration in the interests of justice, any asserted error of law is to be corrected on appeal and not through the back door by way of a reconsideration application.[10]For all of the above reasons, the Claimant’s application is refused in its entirety.