Ms M Wright v Tooth Club Op Co Ltd and F Taylor -Smith: 3302599/2025 and 3304489/2025 Ms M Wright v Tooth Club Op Co Ltd and F Taylor -Smith: 3302599/2025 and 3304489/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s application dated 13 May 2026 for reconsideration ofREASONS
[2]I have undertaken preliminary consideration of the Claimant’s application for reconsideration. The Claimant’s application is based upon the findings of fact that the Claimant considers were wrong as they were based upon information not before the Employment Tribunal but was provided to the Employment Tribunal as part of the application. The Claimant provided a document with the heading NHS dated 7 December 2022 and reference to a visit to Victoria Surgery. The printout provided had some of the sentences in the entry regarding the visit cut off.The Law
[3]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 68 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (‘ETPR’)).[4]Rule 69 ETPR states, “Except where it is made in the course of a hearing, an application for reconsideration must be made in writing setting out why reconsideration is necessary and must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the later of—(a) the date on which the written record of the judgment sought to be reconsidered was sent to the parties, or(b) The date that the written reasons were sent, if these were sent separately.”[5]Rule 70(2) ETPR empowers me to refuse the application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[6]The importance of finality was expressed succinctly by Mrs Justice Simler sitting as President in the EAT decision of Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16. Simler 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.”[7]In common with all powers under the ETPR, preliminary consideration under rule 70(2) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective as set out in rule 3, 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.Conclusion
[8]The Claimant’s arguments for reconsideration have come too late. The Claimant had ample opportunity to provide medical documentation relevant to her claim. In fact, the Claimant was ordered to provide such information. The Claimant’s argument that she misinterpreted the order as only referring to documentation during her employment makes no difference at all. The Employment Tribunal’s finding was that the Claimant deemed her full medical records as not relevant; that is why she did not disclose them. It is this finding that is the basis for the Employment Tribunal decision, regardless of the Claimant’s motivation for that misjudgment. Whatever the reason the Claimant decided not to disclose her medical documents is therefore not relevant, as it was her decision. The burden was on the Claimant to prove her disability, and the Claimant was given an opportunity to disclose documents that she relied on to do that. She chose not to do that. She cannot (having had that opportunity after findings are made that go against her desired outcome) then decide that those documents are now relevant, and she wants to rely on them, when they were available for her to rely upon before the preliminary hearing and on the preliminary hearing date of 29 April 2026. Reconsideration is not the opportunity to argue matters not put before the Employment Tribunal, and an opportunity for another bite of the cherry. Furthermore, the Claimant is attempting to relitigate matters that have already been properly determined before the Employment Tribunal, and having regard to the overriding objective, there must be finality. For these reasons, the Claimant’s application is refused. Approved by: