Mrs Lalite and others v Pebble Hand and Foot Sanctuary Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) and others: 3307449/2023 and others
JUDGMENT
[1]There was a TUPE transfer which had the effect of transferring the Claimants from the First Respondent to the Third Respondent.[2]The Claimants were made redundant by the First Respondent without receiving redundancy pay or notice pay, both of which they are entitled to.[3]The First Respondent was not insolvent at the time of the TUPE transfer so a claim cannot be made from the National Insurance Fund.[4]The liability for the redundancy pay and notice pay has transferred from the First Respondent to the Third Respondent.[5]The Third Respondent must pay the following sums to the Claimants:a. £3,876.11 to Mrs White as a redundancy paymentb. £2,214.94 to Mrs White as notice payc. £4,821.25 to Mrs Lalite as a redundancy paymentd. £1,671.37 to Mrs Lalite as notice pay Case Numbers: 3307449/2023, 3307450/2023, 3307451/2023 and 3308137/2023 2e. £3,262.50 to Miss Holmes as a redundancy paymentf. £1,885 to Miss Holmes as notice payg. £2,414.06 to Miss Culmer as a redundancy paymenth. £996.28 to Miss Culmer as notice payREASONS
[1]Rules 71 and 72 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (as amended) give the Tribunal a broad discretion to decide whether reconsideration of a decision is appropriate. Guidance for Tribunals on how to approach applications for reconsideration was given by Simler P in the case of Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0002/16/DA. Paragraphs 34 and 35 provide as follows: “34. […] 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 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. Tribunals have a Case Numbers: 3307449/2023, 3307450/2023, 3307451/2023 and 3308137/2023 2 wide discretion whether or not to order reconsideration. 35. Where […] a matter has been fully ventilated and properly argued, and in the absence of any identifiable administrative error or event occurring after the hearing that requires a reconsideration in the interests of justice, any asserted error of law is to be corrected on appeal and not through the back door by way of a reconsideration application.”[2]Having carefully considered the Third Respondent’s application (and bearing in mind the importance of finality in litigation and the interests of all parties), I am not satisfied that there are grounds to vary or revoke the judgment.[3]The Third Respondent claims not to have been invited to the hearing and that it did not have a chance to represent itself. However:a. The Third Respondent sent an email to the Tribunal on 12 January 2024 saying “please accept this as our formal response”,b. On 20 March 2024, the Tribunal sent the Third Respondent a Record of the Preliminary Hearing that took place on 29 February 2024. That included: i. Case Management Orders for the Third Respondent to comply with, and ii. Notice of the Final Hearing that would take place 25 April 2024.[4]Beyond sending the email on 12 January 2024, the Third Respondent has not complied with Tribunal Orders, nor attended the Tribunal hearings it was give notice of.[5]There is therefore nothing to cause the me to reconsider my judgment, which was made on the basis of the evidence and representations of the parties that attended the hearing.[6]The application for reconsideration is therefore refused. ............................................................