Miss M Gillard v West Kent Group Ltd and Domiciliary Care Experts: 2310231/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2310231/2024
Between
Miss M GillardClaimantWest Kent Group Ltd and Domiciliary Care ExpertsRespondent
Before
Employment Judge ElliottDate 30 May 2025
JUDGMENT
on RECONSIDERATION (under r.67 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024)[1]The Respondent’s application for reconsideration of the judgment given in this matter on 7 th February 2025 is refused, and the decision in that judgment is confirmed. APPLICATION[2]The Respondent applied, under Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (now Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024), for reconsideration of my decision, to refuse an extension of time in which to file a response and to reject the response as it was filed outside of the requisite time limit.[3]The Respondent has applied for a reconsideration of my judgment as it says, ‘it is in the interests of justice to reconsider the decision made to reject an application to extend the time to respond by one day.’ Case Number: 2310231/2024 2[4]Upon reconsideration, there is no prospect of my decision being revoked or varied. The Respondent, having previously been given an extension of time to submit a response, acknowledges that it failed to submit a response by the deadline stated due to an administrative error.[5]Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to re-litigate matters that have already been litigated, or to re-argue matters in a different way or adopting points previously omitted.[6]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.’ Case Number: 2310231/2024 3[7]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.’[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 Respondent’s application is refused. Case Number: 2310231/2024 4 _____________________________ Employment Judge Sudra Date: 14th MAY 2025[1]The claims for unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract in respect of mileage and travel time succeed and respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £1,221.79[2]The claims for 3 weeks wages in October 2024 and for holiday pay are dismissed.