Miss N Carr-Thompson v RBS Group and National Westminster Bank plc: 2303839/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2303839/2024

Between

Miss N Carr-ThompsonClaimant

RBS GroupRespondent

Date 6 February 2025

REASONS

[1]This is reconsideration of the judgment striking out the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal because she did not have requisite 2 years’ service to mount that claim and no other circumstances applied which would make this complaint an ‘automatic’ unfair dismissal to which that requirement does not apply.

[2]I am the Employment Judge who issued that strike out judgment Consequently, it is for me to consider the application and, if I consider there are no reasonable prospects of the application succeeding, it is for me to dismiss the application without reference to the rest of the Panel or the respondent (to take its view on the 1 of 2 Case Number: 2303839/2024 application). There is, therefore, no need for the respondent to comment on the application or on this decision.

[3]On 4 July 2024, I caused a letter to be sent to the claimant which asked for an explanation why the claim should be able to continue without the requisite length of service. A response was required by 25 July 2024. There was no response to that letter. Judgment was issued.

[4]On 26 November 2024, the claimant wrote to object to an application the respondent had made to strike out all of the claim, and said that she seemed not to have received emails in the case. A witness statement was supplied which dealt with that wider application. In that statement, the claimant confirmed that she had less than 2 years’ service. She submits that her dismissal was done contrary to her contractual notice period in order that her dismissal happened before the 2 years passed. The claimant also admits that she was dismissed for gross misconduct (although this is refuted) such that the respondent might be entitled to dismiss her without that notice.

[5]In short, the claimant does not contend that her dismissal was done for any of the reasons which would remove the need for her to have 2 years’ service. The claimant does admit that she did not have that required service.

[6]In the circumstances, she does not have standing to bring an unfair dismissal claim. Even if the respondent acted improperly in dismissing her before she reached that service (and it is not obvious to me that it did), then the point of the requirement is that she would still be unable to complain about that unfair dismissal. Until the 2 year mark actually passed, she had no statutory rights to protect her from unfair dismissal.

[7]It follows that there is no chance of the strike out judgment being varied or revoked. The claimant’s objection only provides information which confirms that she had no standing to bring the complaint. The complaint remains struck out.

[1]Upon considering the history of this matter and the claimant's repeated failure to comply with orders of the Tribunal, I have decided to strike out the remaining claims of age, disability, and race discrimination brought by Miss Nicole Carr Thompson against National Westminster Bank Plc.

[2]The claimant's claim form was presented to the Tribunal on 27 April 2024, and a preliminary hearing was held on 28 November 2024 to address various issues, including time bar and disability status. At that hearing, Employment Judge Abbott made specific case management orders directing the claimant to provide a disability impact statement and relevant medical records by 10 January 2025.

[3]Despite being granted an extension until 17 January 2025 at the respondent's request, the claimant failed to comply with these orders. The respondent subsequently applied for an unless order on 29 January 2025, seeking dismissal of the claim if the claimant did not provide the required information by 5 February 2025. Today is 6 February 2025 and I have seen nothing in correspondence to suggest that the claimant has provided what was required of her in any event. The Respondents (29 January) application for an Unless Order has come before me today.

[4]The orders made by Employment Judge Abbott on 28 November 2024 contained clear warnings to the claimant. Paragraph 20 stated: "If any of these orders is not complied with, the Tribunal may:(a) waive or vary the requirement;

(b) strike out the claim or the response;

(d) award costs in accordance with the Employment Tribunal Rules." (my emphasis).

[5]Paragraph 21 further guided: "Anyone affected by any of these orders may apply for it to be varied, suspended or set aside."

[6]I am satisfied that the claimant was given ample opportunity and clear instructions to provide the necessary information and comply with the Tribunal's orders. Her failure to do so, despite the unambiguous warnings, constitutes unreasonable behaviour causing delay and Reference number: 2303839-2024 wasting scarce judicial and tribunal resources.

[7]In accordance with Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the Tribunal has the power to strike out all or part of a claim for non-compliance with any order of the Tribunal. Rule 38(2) requires that the claimant be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations before such an order is made, which I am satisfied has been fulfilled through the unambiguous warnings and opportunities provided.

[8]Considering the claimant's repeated disregard for the Tribunal's orders, her failure to actively pursue her claims, and the clear warnings issued, I find it appropriate to strike out the remaining claims of age, disability, and race discrimination brought by Miss Nicole Carr Thompson against National Westminster Bank Plc under Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024.

[9]The respondent's application for an Unless Order is therefore refused as unnecessary.

[10]All further hearings are vacated (cancelled). Approved by: Judge M Aspinall (sitting as an

[11]Miss Carr Thompson's application for reconsideration of my judgment of 6 February 2025 was received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 27 March 2025 as part of her grounds of appeal. I am prepared to treat these grounds of appeal as equally constituting an application for reconsideration to the Employment Tribunal.

[12]The application was made significantly out of time, as Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 requires that applications for reconsideration must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the date on which the written record of the judgment was sent to the parties. My judgment was sent to the parties on 14 February 2025, but the application for reconsideration was not received until 27 March 2025, approximately six weeks later. The claimant has provided no explanation for this delay.

[13]In her application, Miss Carr Thompson contends that the decision to strike out her remaining claims was disproportionate, and that the Tribunal failed to consider her ongoing health issues which, she asserts, prevented her from complying with the orders. She has provided medical evidence with her application, comprising a GP consultation note dated 22 November 2024 which indicates she was suffering from a lower respiratory tract infection at that time. However, this medical evidence relates to a period approximately two months before the deadline for compliance with the Tribunal's orders. She has not provided any medical evidence covering the period in January 2025 when she failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders.

[14]Miss Carr Thompson also contends that her non-compliance was neither wilful nor negligent, and that a lesser sanction should have been imposed. She seeks reinstatement of her claims. The respondent has not submitted a response to the application for reconsideration.

[15]Neither party has specifically requested a hearing to determine the application for reconsideration, and I do not consider that a hearing is necessary in the interests of justice. Miss Nicole Carr Thompson -v- National Westminster Bank Plc [URN 2303839-2024] 26-Apr-2025 Decision on Reconsideration Page 2 of 10 Legislation

[16]The power to reconsider judgments is set out in Rules 68 to 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. These provisions replaced the previous Rules 70 to 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, though the substance remains largely the same.

[17]Rule 68(1) provides that: "The Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so."

[18]Rule 68(2) further states that: "A judgment under reconsideration may be confirmed, varied or revoked."

[19]Rule 68(3) adds: "If the judgment under reconsideration is revoked the Tribunal may take the decision again. In doing so, the Tribunal is not required to come to the same conclusion."

[20]Rule 69 addresses the procedure for making an application for reconsideration, stating: "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."

[21]Rule 70(1) requires that: "The Tribunal must consider any application made under rule 69 (application for reconsideration)."

[22]Rule 70(2) provides an important threshold test: "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."

[23]Rule 70(3) states that: "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 determined without a hearing. The notice may also set out the Tribunal's provisional view on the application."

[24]Rule 70(4) provides that: "If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the judgment must be reconsidered at a hearing unless the Tribunal considers, having regard to any written representations provided under paragraph (3), that a hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice." Case law

[25]The approach to reconsideration applications has been considered in several cases. In Ebury Partners UK Limited v Mr M Acton Davis

[2023] EAT 40

, His Honour Judge Shanks addressed the proper approach to reconsideration. At paragraph 24, he observed: "The employment tribunal can therefore only reconsider a decision if it is necessary to do so 'in the interests of justice.' A central aspect of the interests of justice is that there should be finality in litigation. It is therefore unusual for a litigant to be allowed a 'second bite of the cherry' and the jurisdiction to reconsider should be exercised with caution. In general, while it may be appropriate to reconsider a decision where there has been some procedural mishap such that a party had been denied a fair and proper opportunity to present his case, the jurisdiction should not be invoked to correct a supposed error made by the ET after the parties have had a fair opportunity to present Miss Nicole Carr Thompson -v- National Westminster Bank Plc [URN 2303839-2024] 26-Apr-2025 Decision on Reconsideration Page 3 of 10 their cases on the relevant issue."

[26]At paragraph 27 of Ebury, HHJ Shanks emphasised the need for the Employment Tribunal to address the public interest in finality of litigation when considering reconsideration applications. He noted that it was "significant that at no stage in his reconsideration judgment did the EJ address the point made in Ebury Partners' solicitors' letter... about the public interest in finality and the fact that Mr Acton Davis was seeking 'a second bite at the cherry'... Rather, he made no assessment of the interests of justice at all before proceeding to reconsider the construction point."

[27]The case further highlights the exceptional nature of reconsideration, with the EAT allowing the appeal against the reconsideration judgment in part because the judge had failed to properly consider whether the interests of justice required a reconsideration. The EAT held that the judge "should not have reconsidered the judgement at all given the public interest in finality and the fact that the Claimant could and should have presented arguments on the proper construction at the original hearing."

[28]HHJ Shanks also noted at paragraph 31 that a judge should not go on a "frolic of his own" by reconsidering aspects of a judgment that were not part of the application for reconsideration.

[29]Additionally, the case of Outasight VB Limited v Mr L Brown [2014]

UKEAT/0253/14/LA

provides important guidance on the "interests of justice" test in relation to reconsideration applications. In Outasight, Her Honour Judge Eady QC (as she then was) considered whether changes to the Employment Tribunal Rules affected the approach to reconsideration applications, particularly in relation to fresh evidence. The EAT held that the principles laid down in Ladd v Marshall

[1954] 3 All ER 745

, CA (regarding the admission of fresh evidence) would in most cases encapsulate what is meant by "the interests of justice" when considering reconsideration applications.

[30]Judge Eady stated that the approach laid down in Ladd v Marshall "provides a consistent approach across the civil courts and the EAT" and there was no reason why a different approach should be adopted in the Employment Tribunal simply because these principles were no longer expressly set out in the Rules. She acknowledged that "the interests of justice might on occasion permit evidence to be adduced where the requirements of Ladd v Marshall are not strictly met” but emphasised that this would only be in exceptional circumstances where there is "some additional factor or mitigating circumstance which meant that the evidence in question could not be obtained with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage."

[31]The EAT in Outasight also emphasised that the interests of justice include not only the interests of the party seeking reconsideration but also the interests of the other party and the public interest in the finality of litigation.

[32]In summary, the case law establishes that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy, to be exercised with caution. While the 'interests of justice' test provides a broad discretion, this discretion must be exercised judicially, balancing the interests of all parties and the public interest in finality of litigation. Fresh evidence will generally only be admitted where it satisfies the principles in Ladd v Marshall, or where there are exceptional circumstances that prevented the evidence from being obtained earlier. Documents considered

[33]In determining this application for reconsideration, I have carefully reviewed all relevant documents relating to both the original proceedings and the reconsideration application itself.

[34]I have examined the claimant's ET1 claim form dated 27 April 2024, which sets out her claims of discrimination on grounds of age, disability, and race, as well as her (now struck out) unfair dismissal claim. The ET1 details various allegations, including that colleagues had made Miss Nicole Carr Thompson -v- National Westminster Bank Plc [URN 2303839-2024] 26-Apr-2025 Decision on Reconsideration Page 4 of 10 comments about her disability status, that a manager physically assaulted her, and that she was subjected to unfavourable treatment regarding her medical appointments and requests for reasonable adjustments.

[35]I have also reviewed the respondent's ET3 response form and grounds of resistance dated 27 May 2024, which deny the claimant's allegations and challenge the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear her claims on the basis that they were presented out of time.

[36]The case management orders made by Employment Judge Abbott on 28 November 2024 have been carefully considered, particularly paragraphs 14 and 15 which required the claimant to provide a disability impact statement and medical records by 10 January 2025. These orders also contained clear warnings at paragraph 20 about the potential consequences of noncompliance, including the possibility that the Tribunal might strike out the claim.

[37]I have reviewed the respondent's application dated 29 January 2025 for an unless order, which noted the claimant's failure to comply with the Tribunal's orders and requested that her claim be dismissed unless she provided the required information by 5 February 2025.

[38]The claimant's application for reconsideration, as contained within her grounds of appeal to the EAT received on 27 March 2025, has been carefully examined, along with the medical evidence attached to it, namely a GP consultation note dated 22 November 2024. I note that this medical evidence relates to a period some two months before the deadline for compliance with the Tribunal's orders, and no medical evidence has been provided relating to January 2025 when the claimant failed to comply with those orders. Evaluation of the application

[39]I have given careful consideration to Miss Carr Thompson's application for reconsideration of my decision to strike out her remaining claims. Before considering the merits of the application, I must first address the issue of time limits. Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 requires that applications for reconsideration must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the date on which the written record of the judgment was sent to the parties. My judgment was sent to the parties on 14 February 2025, but the application for reconsideration was not received until 27 March 2025, approximately six weeks later. The claimant has provided no explanation for this delay, and no request for an extension of time has been made.

[40]This delay alone is sufficient ground to refuse the application for reconsideration. However, I have also considered the merits of the application.

[41]The threshold for reconsideration is high. As articulated in Ebury, reconsideration is only appropriate "where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so." A central aspect of the interests of justice is finality in litigation, meaning that it is unusual for a litigant to be permitted a "second bite of the cherry." The jurisdiction to reconsider should be exercised with caution, particularly where parties have had a fair opportunity to present their cases.

[42]The critical question is whether there is a reasonable prospect of my judgment being varied or revoked, as required by Rule 70(2). This requires consideration of whether the claimant has raised grounds that, if accepted, would likely lead to a different outcome. It also requires me to consider whether the interests of justice necessitate reconsideration in the circumstances of this case.

[43]Miss Carr Thompson's history of non-compliance with Tribunal orders is relevant to this evaluation. She was directed by Employment Judge Abbott to provide a disability impact statement and medical records by 10 January 2025. Despite being granted an extension until 17 January 2025, she failed to comply. She made no application for a further extension of time and provided no explanation for her non-compliance prior to the deadlines. It was only after the Miss Nicole Carr Thompson -v- National Westminster Bank Plc [URN 2303839-2024] 26-Apr-2025 Decision on Reconsideration Page 5 of 10 respondent applied for an unless order on 29 January 2025, and after I struck out her claims on 6 February 2025, that she sought to explain her non-compliance with reference to medical issues. Findings of fact and application of the law - individual grounds Failure to Consider Medical Evidence

[44]Miss Carr Thompson contends that the Tribunal failed to take into account her ongoing health issues when striking out her claims. She argues that her medical conditions prevented her from complying with the Tribunal's orders requiring her to provide a disability impact statement and medical records by the specified deadline.

[45]In support of this ground, Miss Carr Thompson has provided a GP consultation note dated 22 November 2024, which indicates that she was suffering from a lower respiratory tract infection at that time. However, I note that this medical evidence relates to a period approximately two months before the relevant deadlines in January 2025. No medical evidence has been provided to demonstrate that she was suffering from any medical condition during January 2025 that would have prevented her from complying with the Tribunal's orders or from seeking an extension of time.

[46]Applying the principles established in Outasight VB Limited v Mr L Brown, I must consider whether there is any "additional factor or mitigating circumstance" which meant that the medical evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence and presented to the Tribunal before I made my decision on 6 February 2025. The claimant has not provided any explanation as to why she was unable to obtain and present such evidence earlier, nor has she explained why she did not apply for a further extension of time if she was experiencing health difficulties.

[47]In this case, no medical evidence relating to January 2025 was put before me prior to my decision on 6 February 2025, and I cannot be expected to have speculated about the claimant's medical condition during that period. As observed in Outasight, the Tribunal "is required to consider evidence properly put before it, not speculate about evidence that was not provided despite orders to do so."

[48]Furthermore, even if the claimant was experiencing health issues in January 2025, this would not explain why she did not contact the Tribunal to request an extension of time. The orders made by Employment Judge Abbott on 28 November 2024 expressly provided at paragraph 21 that "Anyone affected by any of these orders may apply for it to be varied, suspended or set aside." The claimant made no such application.

[49]I find that this ground does not meet the high threshold for reconsideration established by Rule 70(2). There is no reasonable prospect of my judgment being varied or revoked on this basis, as the medical evidence now provided does not relate to the relevant period and does not explain the claimant's failure to seek an extension of time. The application on this ground is therefore refused. Delays Not Wilful or Negligent

[50]Miss Carr Thompson argues that her failure to comply with the Tribunal's orders was neither wilful nor negligent but rather was a consequence of her health conditions.

[51]As noted above, the claimant has not provided any medical evidence to demonstrate that she was suffering from health conditions in January 2025 that would have prevented her from complying with the Tribunal's orders or from seeking an extension of time. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot conclude that her non-compliance was neither wilful nor negligent.

[52]Moreover, this was not the first instance of non-compliance by the claimant. She had previously failed to provide a witness statement by the deadline set by the Tribunal for the preliminary Miss Nicole Carr Thompson -v- National Westminster Bank Plc [URN 2303839-2024] 26-Apr-2025 Decision on Reconsideration Page 6 of 10 hearing on 28 November 2024, only submitting it the day before that hearing despite being reminded of her obligation to do so by the respondent.

[53]The case law on reconsideration, particularly Ebury and Outasight, emphasises the importance of finality in litigation and the exceptional nature of reconsideration. As noted in Outasight, while reconsideration may be appropriate "where there has been some procedural mishap such that a party had been denied a fair and proper opportunity to present his case," it should not be used to give a litigant a "second bite of the cherry" where they have failed to comply with Tribunal orders.

[54]In this case, the claimant had a fair opportunity to comply with the Tribunal's orders or to seek an extension of time if she was unable to do so. She did neither. Her application for reconsideration appears to be an attempt to have a "second bite of the cherry" by providing explanations and (limited) evidence that could and should have been provided before the deadlines expired. As was observed in Outasight, citing the earlier case of Redding v EMI Leisure Ltd, the fact that a claimant may not have done themselves justice in presenting their case is not sufficient for reconsideration, as "justice" means justice to both parties.

[55]I find that this ground does not meet the threshold for reconsideration established by Rule 70(2). There is no reasonable prospect of my judgment being varied or revoked on this basis. The application on this ground is therefore refused. Disproportionate Sanction

[56]Miss Carr Thompson contends that striking out her claims was a disproportionate sanction for her failure to comply with the Tribunal's orders. She argues that a lesser sanction, such as an unless order, would have been more appropriate.

[57]The power to strike out claims is provided by Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, which permits strike out for non-compliance with any order of the Tribunal. This power must, of course, be exercised judiciously and proportionately.

[58]In my judgment of 6 February 2025, I noted that the claimant had repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal orders, was not actively pursuing her claim, and had conducted the proceedings unreasonably. This was not a case of a single instance of non-compliance, but rather a pattern of behaviour. The claimant had failed to provide a witness statement for the preliminary hearing on 28 November 2024 (submitting it only the day before) and then failed to provide the disability impact statement and medical records as ordered by Employment Judge Abbott.

[59]The orders made by Employment Judge Abbott on 28 November 2024 contained clear warnings about the potential consequences of non-compliance, including the possibility that the Tribunal might strike out the claim. Despite these warnings, the claimant failed to comply with the orders and did not seek an extension of time.

[60]In considering whether strike out was a proportionate sanction, I also note that the respondent had applied for an unless order on 29 January 2025, seeking dismissal of the claim if the claimant did not provide the required information by 5 February 2025. Even if I had imposed an unless order in the terms sought, rather than striking out the claims, it appears likely from what transpired that the unless order would have been breached, leading to the same outcome.

[61]I find that this ground does not meet the threshold for reconsideration established by Rule 70(2). There is no reasonable prospect of my judgment being varied or revoked on this basis. The application on this ground is therefore refused. Request for Reinstatement

[62]Miss Carr Thompson seeks reinstatement of her claims. This ground is essentially a restatement Miss Nicole Carr Thompson -v- National Westminster Bank Plc [URN 2303839-2024] 26-Apr-2025 Decision on Reconsideration Page 7 of 10 of her other grounds and does not raise any additional reasons why reconsideration is necessary in the interests of justice.

[63]For the reasons already outlined, I do not consider that the claimant has demonstrated that there is a reasonable prospect of my judgment being varied or revoked. Her history of non-compliance with Tribunal orders, her failure to seek extensions of time when needed, and the absence of medical evidence relating to the relevant period all weigh against reinstatement of her claims.

[64]The case law on reconsideration, particularly Ebury and Outasight, emphasises the exceptional nature of reconsideration and the importance of finality in litigation. In the absence of compelling reasons why reconsideration is necessary in the interests of justice, an application for reconsideration should be refused.

[65]I find that this ground does not meet the threshold for reconsideration established by Rule 70(2). There is no reasonable prospect of my judgment being varied or revoked on this basis. The application on this ground is therefore refused. Findings of fact and application of the law

[66]Having considered each of the grounds raised in Miss Carr Thompson's application for reconsideration individually, I now turn to an overall assessment of the application in light of the applicable legislation and case law.

[67]Rule 68(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 permits reconsideration of a judgment "where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so." Rule 70(2) establishes a threshold test for reconsideration applications, requiring the Tribunal to refuse an application if it considers "there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked."

[68]The case law, particularly Ebury and Outasight, emphasises that reconsideration is an exceptional jurisdiction to be exercised with caution. A central aspect of the interests of justice is finality in litigation, meaning that it is unusual for a litigant to be permitted a "second bite of the cherry." As made clear in Outasight, reconsideration may be appropriate "where there has been some procedural mishap such that a party had been denied a fair and proper opportunity to present his case," but should not be used to correct a supposed error where parties have had a fair opportunity to present their cases.

[69]In Outasight, the EAT confirmed that the principles laid down in Ladd v Marshall encapsulate what is meant by "the interests of justice" in most cases where a party seeks to introduce fresh evidence. While the EAT acknowledged that there might be cases where the interests of justice would permit fresh evidence to be adduced notwithstanding that the principles laid down in Ladd v Marshall were not strictly met, such cases would require "some additional factor or mitigating circumstance which meant that the evidence in question could not be obtained with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage."

[70]In this case, I find that Miss Carr Thompson had a fair opportunity to comply with the Tribunal's orders requiring her to provide a disability impact statement and medical records by 17 January 2025. She also had a fair opportunity to seek an extension of time if she was unable to comply with those orders. She did neither.

[71]The claimant's application for reconsideration appears to be an attempt to have a "second bite of the cherry" by providing explanations and limited evidence that could and should have been provided before the deadlines expired. The medical evidence she has now provided relates to November 2024, not January 2025 when she failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders. No explanation has been provided for her failure to seek an extension of time.

[72]I also find that the claimant's history of non-compliance with Tribunal orders is relevant to the Miss Nicole Carr Thompson -v- National Westminster Bank Plc [URN 2303839-2024] 26-Apr-2025 Decision on Reconsideration Page 8 of 10 assessment of whether reconsideration is necessary in the interests of justice. This was not a case of a single instance of non-compliance, but rather a pattern of behaviour. The claimant had previously failed to provide a witness statement for the preliminary hearing on 28 November 2024, submitting it only the day before despite being reminded of her obligation to do so by the respondent.

[73]Considering these findings, I conclude that there is no reasonable prospect of my judgment of 6 February 2025 being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration is therefore refused under Rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024.

Conclusion

[74]I have carefully considered Miss Carr Thompson's application for reconsideration of my judgment of 6 February 2025, in which I struck out her remaining claims of age, disability, and race discrimination pursuant to Rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024.

[75]The application for reconsideration was received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 27 March 2025 as part of her grounds of appeal against my judgment. Under Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, applications for reconsideration must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the date on which the written record of the judgment was sent to the parties. My judgment was sent to the parties on 14 February 2025, but the application for reconsideration was not received until 27 March 2025, approximately six weeks later. The claimant has provided no explanation for this delay, and no request for an extension of time has been made. This delay alone is sufficient ground to refuse the application for reconsideration.

[76]However, even if the application had been made in time, I would have found it to be without merit. The threshold for reconsideration is rightly set high. As articulated in Ebury and reinforced in Outasight, reconsideration is only appropriate "where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so." A central aspect of the interests of justice is finality in litigation, meaning that it is unusual for a litigant to be permitted a "second bite of the cherry." The jurisdiction to reconsider should be exercised with caution, particularly where parties have had a fair opportunity to present their cases.

[77]In this case, I find that Miss Carr Thompson had a fair opportunity to comply with the Tribunal's orders requiring her to provide a disability impact statement and medical records by 17 January 2025. She also had a fair opportunity to seek an extension of time if she was unable to comply with those orders. She did neither.

[78]The claimant's application for reconsideration appears to be an attempt to have a "second bite of the cherry" by providing explanations and limited evidence that could and should have been provided before the deadlines expired. The medical evidence she has now provided relates to November 2024, not January 2025 when she failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders. No explanation has been provided for her failure to seek an extension of time.

[79]The claimant's history of non-compliance with Tribunal orders is also relevant to the assessment of whether reconsideration is necessary in the interests of justice. This was not a case of a single instance of non-compliance, but rather a pattern of behaviour. The claimant had previously failed to provide a witness statement for the preliminary hearing on 28 November 2024, submitting it only the day before despite being reminded of her obligation to do so by the respondent.

[80]In striking out the claimant's remaining claims, I took into account her repeated failure to comply with Tribunal orders, her failure to actively pursue her claim, and her unreasonable conduct of the proceedings. I remain satisfied that strike out was a proportionate sanction in the circumstances. Miss Nicole Carr Thompson -v- National Westminster Bank Plc [URN 2303839-2024] 26-Apr-2025 Decision on Reconsideration Page 9 of 10

[81]I have also considered the overriding objective as set out in Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, which requires the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes ensuring that parties are on an equal footing, dealing with cases proportionately, avoiding unnecessary formality, avoiding delay, and saving expense. The claimant's repeated non-compliance with Tribunal orders has caused delay and wasted resources. In these circumstances, I consider that my decision to strike out the claims was consistent with the overriding objective, and there is no basis for reconsidering that decision.

[82]Having considered all the grounds raised in the claimant's application for reconsideration, and applying the principles established in Ebury and Outasight, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of my judgment of 6 February 2025 being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration is therefore refused under Rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. APPROVED Judge M Aspinall (sitting as an