V L Julakanti v Nationwide Building Society: 2307480/2023
JUDGMENT
ON APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION In exercise of powers contained in Rule 68 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 (“Rules”), the claimant’s application to reconsider the Judgment dated 16 June 2025 is refused because there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.REASONS
[1]The claimant essentially asks me to reconsider the Dismissal Judgment dated 16 June 2025 which was issued in response to her withdrawal of her unauthorised deduction from wages complaint orally at a preliminary case management hearing heard on 9 and 10 June 2025. Principles of Reconsideration[2]When approaching any application, and during the course of proceedings, the Tribunal must give effect to the overriding objective found at Rule 3 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. This says: Page 1 of 5 “2 - The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable Employment Tribunals to deal with cases fairly and justly. Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, so far as practicable—(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;(b) dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues;(c) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings;(d) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues; and(e) saving expense. A Tribunal shall seek to give effect to the overriding objective in interpreting, or exercising any power given to it by, these Rules. The parties and their representatives shall assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective and in particular shall co-operate generally with each other and with the Tribunal.”[3]The power to confirm, vary or revoke a judgment is found at Rule 68. That provides that a Judgment can be reconsidered “if it is in the interests of justice to do so”. Rule 69 of the Rules requires that an application for reconsideration is made within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties. The written record was sent to the parties on 17 June 2025. The first the claimant makes mention of wanting a reconsideration of the Dismissal Judgment was in an email dated 11 November 2025. Prior to this and following the hearing on 9 and 10 June 2025 she has written to the Tribunal on multiple occasions expressing her need for support and difficulties with complying with Orders due to her mental state and anxiety. She does not make any mention in writing to the withdrawal of this claim being made erroneously or due to any health condition following receipt of the Judgment. In fact, she dos not make any mention of this complaint following her withdrawal of it until a request to ‘set it aside’ on 11 November 2025 (well outside of the 14 days permitted to ask for a reconsideration). It is relevant there had also been an earlier preliminary hearing following the withdrawal of this complaint (which took place on 29 and 30 September 2025) yet she failed to raise anything about the Dismissal Judgment or her withdrawal of the claim at that hearing.[4]However, I will still deal with the requested reconsideration despite it being considerably out of time.[5]By rule 68, the Tribunal may reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so and, if it decides to do so, may vary, revoke or confirm the original decision. Since the introduction of the present rules there has been a single threshold for making an application. That is that reconsideration is necessary in the interests of justice. There must therefore be something about the nature of how the decision was reached, either substantively or procedurally, from which the interests of justice would be offended if the original decision was allowed to stand. Page 2 of 5[6]Rule 70(1) and(2) of the Rules provides: “A Tribunal must consider any application made under rule 69. 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 shall be refused, and the Tribunal shall inform the parties of the refusal. …”[7]Where an Employment Judge refuses an application following the application of Rule 70 (2), then it is not necessary to hear the application at a hearing.[8]The interests of justice in this case should be measured as a balance between both parties; both the applicant and the respondent to a reconsideration application have interests which must be guarded against (Outasight VB Limited v Brown [2014] UKEAT/0253/14).[9]In Brown, Her Honour Judge Eady QC said that the general public also have an interest in such cases because there should be an expectation of the finality of litigation. This was an expectation outlined by Mr Justice Phillips in Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR936, who said “it is very much in the interests of the general public that proceedings of this kind should be as final as possible”. He also said it was unjust to give the loser in litigation a “second bite of the cherry” where, having lost and learnt of the reasons for losing, a litigant seeks to re-argue points and bring additional evidence or information which would overcome the reasons given for the loss.[10]Consequently, the provision of evidence said to be relevant after the conclusion of the hearing will rarely serve to alter or vary the judgment given unless the party seeking to introduce the evidence can show (Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1):a. the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial;b. the evidence would probably have an important influence on the result of the case; andc. the evidence must be apparently credible. Grounds and reasons of reconsideration application[11]The claimant in her email dated 11 November 2025 largely cites her health difficulties and is asking for adjustments ahead of the forthcoming preliminary hearing.[12]At the preliminary hearing which took place on 17 and 18 November 2025 the claimant confirmed she did not wish to add to the application she had already made (on 11 November 2025). Page 3 of 5 The reasons for the claim being dismissed[13]The claimant withdrew the unauthorised deduction of wages complaint clearly and without ambiguity at an earlier preliminary hearing. This withdrawal resulted in the Dismissal Judgment date 16 June 2025. The withdrawal takes effect from the date she withdrew the claim orally. The claimant did not express she wanted to reserve the right to bring a further claim raising the same complaint and it was in the interests of justice to issue the Dismissal Judgment.[14]If neither of the exceptions in Rule 51 of the ET Rules of Procedure 2024 apply the clear effect of the claim being dismissed on withdrawal is that there is an absolute bar to the resurrection of the withdrawn claim.[15]At the preliminary hearing I considered the claimant’s withdrawal to be clear an unequivocal and, in those circumstances, I was satisfied no further enquiry was required particularly given the extent of the claims being pursued and the fact this complaint was not properly understood in any event from her pleaded case. It is notable her particulars of claim (23 pages attached to her ET1) refer to the unlawful deduction relating to ‘coercive negotiation’ and not increasing her pay package. The basis of the claim appears to be misconceived. There is no proper particularisation of what deductions were made unlawfully (as distinct from any unfairness she perceives from any pay award negotiation and/or pay reduction when she moved roles). She does not plead what wages were properly payable to her and what unlawful deductions were made and when. As against this background there was nothing unusual about the withdrawal of the claims.[16]In any event the withdrawal was unequivocally given in the hearing and there was nothing to suggest otherwise so as to make me question it. It was not sudden. It was not as a result of any questioning of the claim or its merits. It was done whilst clarifying the claims she was pursuing at the outset. It is also notable that during the hearing on 9 June 2025 when she withdrew the complaint, she had support from Ms Heard who assisted in checking on the claimant’s mental wellbeing throughout the hearing.[17]In the afternoon of the first day of the hearing of 9 June 2025, I accept she became overwhelmed and I made sure she had a long break before satisfying myself she was able to proceed. This was some time after she had withdrawn the complaint and when she did, she did so calmly and with no reason to consider whether the withdrawal was ambiguous in any way. I was (and remain) satisfied the withdrawal was not in response to any feelings of anxiety or overwhelm (it was given well before she informed us she was feeling anxious and overwhelmed) and she did not withdraw it in response to being asked to withdraw the claim or to explain the claim. She withdrew it of her own volition. It is notable and relevant that she has had a similar response in every preliminary case management hearing which has been managed with adjustments such as breaks and adjournments of a hearing where appropriate. It is relevant to note during none of those hearings where she has been overwhelmed, has she withdrawn any other complaint but rather continues to Page 4 of 5 want to expand the scope of the claims. She is capable of understanding and articulating her claims well despite her health conditions (this is not a finding or observation about the merits of any of those claims but rather relevant to her ability to articulate herself and remain firm about the claims she is bringing despite any feelings of anxiety/overwhelm). Decision on the reconsideration application[18]I am not persuaded Rule 51 (a) or (b) of the ET Rules of Procedure 2024 applied at the time the claimant made her withdrawal, and it was accordingly appropriate to issue the Judgment dismissing it. I remain of the same view.[19]I do not find it is in the interests of justice to set aside the Dismissal Judgment. Nor do I find the claimant has reasonable prospects of the original decision being varied or revoked.[20]In view of the above determination of this application, the original judgment still stands.[21]The application for a reconsideration (albeit it was framed as a request to set aside/amend the dismissal Judgment) of the Judgment is refused.[22]I apologise for the delayed delivery of this Judgment largely due to the number of outstanding applications and requests which have been made in this claim by the claimant which utilises a considerable amount of judicial resource and time to deal with.