Mr I Vaez v Agnes Wittman: 2400205/2017
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s application for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 21 April 2017 is refused.REASONS
[1]I have considered the claimant's application for reconsideration of the judgment dismissing the complaints of discrimination and victimisation. That application is contained in a number of emails from 21 April 2017 onwards.[2]Rule 72(1) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure empowers me to refuse the application if I consider that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The test is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment (rule 70). Preliminary consideration under rule 72(1) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in rule 2, namely to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues, and avoiding delay. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication.[3]My judgment was that it would not be just and equitable for time to be extended for his claim to proceed. Before I reached that conclusion the claimant gave a full explanation of why his claim was submitted beyond the relevant time limits and at the time that it was, including explaining his medical condition in some detail. His medical condition was explored in cross examination and by questions from the Tribunal. There is no reasonable prospect that the medical evidence now suggested by the claimant as supporting that explanation could result in a different conclusion. Case No: 2400205/2017[4]Accordingly, having considered all the points made by the claimant I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration is refused. _____________________________ Employment Judge Howard 20 October 2017[1]By a letter dated 23 January 2017 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the complaint of unfair dismissal should not be struck out because the claimant was employed for less than 2 years.[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The complaint of unfair dismissal is therefore struck out.[3]The claimant’s remaining complaints of discrimination because of race and/or religious belief, and of victimisation, are not struck out. _____________________________ Employment Judge Franey 9 February 2017