Mr D Padilla v Capita Customer Management Ltd: 2404797/2022
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s application dated 14 November 2024 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 13 November 2024 is refused.REASONS
[1]I have undertaken preliminary consideration of the claimant's application for reconsideration of the judgment dismissing his claims. That application is contained in an email dated 14 November 2024.The Law
[2]An application for reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that (subject to appeal on a point of law) a decision of an Employment Tribunal is final. The test is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment (rule 70).[3]Rule 72(1) of the 2013 Rules of Procedure empowers me to refuse the application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[4]The importance of finality was confirmed by the EAT in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16 where Simler P 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…. 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.” Case Number: 2404797/2022 2[5]In common with all powers under the 2013 Rules, 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. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication. The Application[6]In this claim the judgment that the claimant seeks to have reconsidered was a dismissal following withdrawal of all claims by the claimant. At the hearing no other decisions were made.[7]There was a discussion at the start of the hearing, which included a discussion of the claimant’s application to postpone the hearing. As part of that discussion the potential delay that a postponement would cause was identified. No decision on the application was made. The Employment Tribunal retired to read the relevant documents and statements, specifically allow the claimant time to consider whether, in the light of the delay it would cause, he continued to pursue his postponement application. The claimant was informed that if he wanted to pursue the application it would be determined when the Employment Tribunal resumed thehearing.
[8]During the time given to the claimant the parties reached an agreed settlement of all claims. That was confirmed to have been documented by ACAS in the form of a binding COT3 document.[9]The parties asked to appear before the Employment Tribunal after this. The claimant confirmed to the Employment Tribunal that full settlement reached and in the light of that he was withdrawing all claims. The only decision made by the Employment Tribunal was to dismiss all the claimant’s claims following that withdrawal.[10]Given that both parties confirmed that the claim had been settled in full, that ACAS had confirmed that a binding COT3 had been entered into and that the claimant further confirmed that his claims were withdrawn there is no prospect of a reconsideration of dismissal of the claimant’s claims changing the outcome.[11]Accordingly, it is not in the interests of justice to reconsider the claim and the claimant’s application for reconsideration is refused.