Ms M Nicholls v Sciensus Pharma Services Ltd: 2600224/2023
REASONS
[1]The claimant’s email dated 27 September 2024 is treated as an application for reconsideration of my Judgment and Reasons dated 1 April 2025, which was consider that there is no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked. My brief reasons for this decision are set out below.[2]On 25 and 26 March 2024, I heard the final hearing of the claim by Marie Nicholls against Sciensus Pharma Services Limited. I delivered an oral Judgment and Reasons dismissing the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal. Neither party asked for written reasons at the hearing. 1 of 3[3]The written Judgment was sent to the parties on 11 April 2024. The claimant requested written reasons. I could not find her application for written reasons on the Tribunal’s digital file for this case.[4]The Judgment and Written Reasons were sent to the claimant on 27 September 2024. They consisted of twenty-two pages.[5]The claimant emailed the Tribunal on the evening of 27 September 2024 as follows: “Thank you for putting these documents together. However there is a fundamental and significant error in point 56.28 that states there could not have been a final straw event because I’d accepted new employment before the date of the alleged final straw. This is not the case: - date of final straw event 19/08/22 - date of acceptance of new employment 08/09/22 (Three weeks between final straw and my acceptance of a new role and three weeks for Sciensus Pharma Services Limited to have engaged with my grievance). It is also stated in the documents that I had time to read and prepare the slide deck for the final straw event on 19/08/22. The slides were shared only on the call. The slides were never shared with me ahead of the call. I was merely expected to present slides for an entire region that I had never seen despite scurrying for such information on numerous occasions ahead of the call. This also needs addressing. Yours sincerely, Ms Nicholls”[6]The claimant did not request a reconsideration. The claimant has not appealed my decision to the EAT. At the time, I did not consider her email to be a request for reconsideration.[7]However, the administration at Midlands East have asked me to provide the reconsideration, which I have done.[8]The claimant raises two points about the Judgment and Reasons: 8.1. Paragraph 66.28 states that the final straw happened after the claimant had accepted new employment. She states that the final straw was on 19 August 2022 and that she accepted new employment on 8 September 2022. 8.2. I found that the claimant had time to prepare presentation slides on 19 August 2022.[9]On reviewing the file and my Judgment and Reasons, I find that the claimant’s first point has some merit. My finding of fact about when she accepted her new 2 of 3 employment was not clearly expressed. At paragraph 56.27, I found that the claimant had already accepted the job from her new employer before 8 September. However, if the claimant is correct, it is not a fundamental error.[10]I found that the meeting on 19 August 2022 was not a fundamental breach of contract (paragraphs 65 to 68). I found that none of the other matters complained about by the claimant were breaches of the implied duty of trust and confidence (see paragraph 70). My finding of fact was that the claimant could have read the presentation before the meeting.[11]It therefore follows that my finding about the date of the final straw and acceptance of the new job do not affect my finding that there was no fundamental breach of contract and that the claimant was not dismissed.[12]I therefore find that there was no reasonable prospect of the application for reconsideration being granted. Approved by EJ Shore