Mr S Byrne and Mr L Bottaro v CCS Logistics Ltd and CXM Tech Services UK Ltd: 3302745/2022 and 3302746/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3302745/2022, 3302746/2022
Between
Mr S Byrne (1) Mr L Bottaro (2)ClaimantCCS Logistics Ltd (1) CXM Tech Services UK Ltd (2)Respondent
Date 4 April 2023

JUDGMENT

All claims by either claimant against either respondent are struck out.

REASONS

[1]By a letter dated 4 March 2023 the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to contact the Tribunal by 20 March 2023 to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claims should not be struck out because  the claimant had not supplied the information required by the Tribunal dated 9 January 2023.  The claims have not been actively pursued.[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing and has failed to ask for a hearing. The claim is therefore struck out.[3]The hearing fixed for 19 April 2023 will not take place.[4]Under the current version of the rules, there is a single ground for reconsideration — namely, “where it is necessary in the interests of justice”. This contrasts with the position under the 2004 rules, where there specified grounds upon which a tribunal could review a judgment.[5]When deciding what is “necessary in the interests of justice”, it is important to have regard to the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly, which includes: ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing; dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues; avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings; avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues; and saving expense.[6]In Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11, the EAT explained that the revision to the rules had not been intended to make it more easy or more difficult to succeed in a reconsideration application. In the new version of the rules, it had not been necessary to repeat the other specific grounds for an application because an application relying on any of those other arguments can still be made in reliance on the “interests of justice” grounds.[7]The situation remains, as it had been prior to the 2013 rules, that it is not necessary for the applicant to go as far as demonstrating that there were exceptional circumstances justifying reconsideration. There does, however, have to be a good enough justification to overcome the fact that, when issued, judgments are intended to be final (subject to appeal) and that there is therefore a significant difference between asking for a particular matter to be taken into account before judgment (even very late in the day) and after judgment. As was stated in Ebury Partners Uk Limited v Mr M Acton Davis Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 40 Page 2 of 3 The employment tribunal can therefore only reconsider a decision if it is necessary to do so “in the interests of justice.” A central aspect of the interests of justice is that there should be finality in litigation. It is therefore unusual for a litigant to be allowed a “second bite of the cherry” and the jurisdiction to reconsider should be exercised with caution. The Claimant’s application[8]The Claimant submitted an undated letter by special delivery. It was received on 2 May 2023, which was therefore outsider the relevant time limit 14 day time limit for seeking reconsideration. That deadline was 19 April 2023.[9]No suggested reasons for the delay are mentioned in the letter. It is not in the interests of justice to extend time, and I decline to do so.[10]In any event, the letter asserted that the Respondent(s) had breached the Claimants’ statutory rights. However, the letter made no attempt to address the reasons that the claims were struck out, as stated in the judgment/reasons sent to parties on 5 April 2023. Nothing in the letter provides a reason to change that decision.[11]For the reasons stated above, having considered the Claimant’s application, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, and the application is refused.