Mr C G Viera v Morgan Hunt Ltd and King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: 2302472/2020 and 2302679/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2302472/2020, 2302679/2020
Between
Mr C G VieraClaimantMorgan Hunt Ltd and King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustRespondent
Before
Employment Judge AtkinsIn person for claimantDate 15 May 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal against the First Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.[2]The complaint of wrongful dismissal against the First Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.[3]The complaint of direct discrimination on the basis of race or sex against the First Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.[4]The complaint of unfair dismissal against the Second Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.[5]The claim of direct discrimination on the basis of race or sex against the Second Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. Employment Judge Atkins 27 May 2020[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal against the First Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.[2]The complaint of wrongful dismissal against the First Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.[3]The complaint of direct discrimination on the basis of race or sex against the First Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.[4]The complaint of unfair dismissal against the Second Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.[5]The claim of direct discrimination on the basis of race or sex against the Second Respondent is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. Employment Judge Atkins 27 May 2022 Case No: 2302472/2020
REASONS
[1]unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract brought against the second respondent was heard before me by CVP on 15 May 2025. There had been an application by the respondent to strike out the claims management orders but that was not pursued as it seemed we were ready to proceed.[2]Other claims brought by the claimant had been dismissed on withdrawal in 2022 and it was confirmed that all claims against the first respondent had been dismissed. The claimant had made an application on the morning of the hearing to amend his claims against the second respondent to add claims under sections 44 and 100 Employment Rights Act 1996 which was refused. The second respondent had accepted that the claimant was entitled to holiday pay and the judgment included an order for that to be paid. Case Number:2302472/2020 & 2302679/2020 2[3]claimant had been a worker for the second respondent and that he was not entitled to any further sums (apart from the holiday pay as agreed).[4]Oral judgment was given around 15.45 on 15 May 2025 and a short judgment sent to the parties shortly therafter.[5]In the document accompanying the email of 21 May 2025, the claimant a procedural error, oversight of critical facts, and/or new evidence that could materially affect the outcomethen takes issue with the finding of his employment status which was fully explored at the hearing, repeating many points he made during the hearing. I cannot make out any new evidence. The claimant also says that there is which is plainly incorrect as it appears at the fourth point in the judgment. Rules[6]The relevant employment tribunal rules for this application read as follows: RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGMENTS Application for reconsideration 69. Except where it is made in the course of a hearing, an application for reconsideration must be made in writing setting out why reconsideration is necessary and must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the later of (a)the date on which the written record of the judgment sought to be reconsidered was sent to the parties, or (b)the date that the written reasons were sent, if these were sent separately. Process for reconsideration 70.(1) The Tribunal must consider any application made under rule 69 (application for reconsideration). (2) If the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application must be refused and the Tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal. (3) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the Tribunal must send a notice to the parties specifying the period by which any written representations in respect of the application must be received by the Tribunal, and seeking the views of the parties on whether the application can be provisional views on the application. (4) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the judgment must be reconsidered at a hearing unless the Tribunal considers, having regard Case Number:2302472/2020 & 2302679/2020 3 to any written representations provided under paragraph (3), that a hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice. (5) If the Tribunal determines the application without a hearing the parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to make further written representations in respect of the application.[7]In essence, my first task is to consider whether the application has been made in time under Rule 69. Although I am not aware what date the short judgment was sent to the parties, I accept that the application appears to be in time.[8]I should then consider whether there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. If I decide that, I must, under Rule 70 (2) refuse the application and inform the parties.
Conclusions
[9]I consider that there are no reasonable prospects of the judgment being considered in some detail with all relevant documents at the hearing. The cy in those documents was also holiday pay admission has not been incldued in the judgment is wrong. Approved by