Mr G Poole v Scot Group Ltd T/a Thrifty Car and Van Rental: 3309873/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3309873/2022

Between

Mr G PooleClaimant

Scot Group Ltd T/A Thrifty Car and Van RentalRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Laidler

Date 31 January 2025

JUDGMENT

The Claimant’s application dated 8 November 2024 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 28 October 2024 is refused.

REASONS

[1]This is an application for a reconsideration of the dismissal judgment of Employment Judge Laidler of 28 October 2024. The Regional Employment Judge has authorised me to deal with this application in the absence of Judge Laidler.

[2]Applications for a reconsideration of a Tribunal judgment is an exception to the principle that a decision of the Employment Tribunal is final, save for appeals on a point of law. The test when dealing with an application for a reconsideration is contained within Rule 68 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 which provides: “Principles 68.—(1) The Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. (2) A judgment under reconsideration may be confirmed, varied or revoked. (3) If the judgment under reconsideration is revoked the Tribunal may take the decision again. In doing so, the Tribunal is not required to come to the same conclusion.”

[3]The Court of Appeal in Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor

[2016] EWCA Civ 714

observed (paragraph 21) that the discretion to act in the interests of justice is not open ended and should be exercised in a principled way, and it emphasised the importance of finality of proceedings.

[4]The Claimant issued his ET1 claim form on 28 July 2022. Within that claim form the Claimant complained of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, age discrimination, harassment and victimisation. An ET3 Response denying the claim was filed by the Respondent on 12 September 2022. The matter proceeded to a private preliminary hearing for case management on 21 July 2023 before Employment Judge Manley. The complaint of age discrimination and breach of contract were dismissed upon withdrawal on 21 July 2023. The only complaint which was to proceed was that of constructive unfair dismissal. The final hearing was due to commence of 3 June 2024.

[5]The Claimant wrote to the Tribunal on 30 May 2024 to withdraw his claim, and this was sent a further time on 31 May 2024. The Claimant indicated that this was on the basis of a cost warning from the Respondent. A COT3 agreement was produced with the assistance of ACAS. This was signed by the Claimant on 30 May 2024 but not the Respondent.

[6]On 4 June and again on 1 July 2024 the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal to state that his withdrawal was made under duress following a threat of costs and a breach of orders by the Respondent. The Claimant said he had yet to hear about the withdrawal request and asked if something could be done, and he asked to obtain justice. The Tribunal did not respond to that correspondence as it ought to have done. The Claimant did not copy in the Respondent as he should have done, therefore the Tribunal did not hear from the Respondent on the issue.

[7]A judgment dismissing the claim was not promulgated until 28 October 2024. I can see from the Tribunal’s paper file that the Claimant’s correspondence was brought to the attention of the Judge at the time of promulgating the dismissal judgment.

[8]On 8 November 2024 the Claimant sent an email applying for a reconsideration of the dismissal judgment. The application was made within time, however it was not copied to the Respondent.

[9]The Claimant’s application states that new evidence had come to light from gov.uk / Companies House register that in the two years preceding the Claimant’s resignation a lot of the Respondent’s work force had left their employment. It was not explained in the application how this is in fact new evidence as alleged, or why it could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, nor the relevance of this to the application sought. I was not satisfied that this demonstrated why it would be in the interests of justice to reconsider the dismissal judgment.

[10]The Claimant goes on to make reference to the subject matter of his original claim and dispute with the Respondent. I was again not satisfied that this demonstrated why it would be in the interests of justice to reconsider the dismissal judgment.

[11]The Claimant also repeated his earlier comments about the costs warning he received from the Respondent, he says that the COT3 was signed by him and not the Respondent, and he says he was under psychological and economic duress at the time and says that the COT3 was null and void. No medical evidence was included with the application nor within the previous correspondence from the Claimant.

[12]I did consider that a threat of costs to a litigant in person so close to a final hearing could, in some circumstances, tip the balance in favour of granting an application for a reconsideration in the interests of justice. However, in this case the withdrawal was obtained with the benefit of ACAS involvement which is an independent body staffed by experienced advisors who would inevitably have provided some support or guidance to the Claimant before withdrawing his claim. It is highly likely that there would have been some discussion about costs in the Employment Tribunal being the exception and not the rule. I further noted that the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal on two occasions, on 30 and 31 May 2024 confirming his intention to withdraw.

[13]Having considered all the points made by the Claimant, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The Claimant chose to withdraw the claim at the time that he did having had some support from ACAS in reaching the COT3 agreement. I was not satisfied that there was new evidence which had only just come to light which would have made any difference to that decision to withdraw or made any difference to the overall prospects for the original claim. The subject matter of the claim arose in or before March 2022 which is a considerable time earlier. There does need to be finality in litigation. I am not satisfied that within the specific facts of this case it would be in the interests of justice to reconsider the dismissal judgment.

[14]I therefore refuse the application for a reconsideration.

[15]I nevertheless offer my apologies to the Claimant for the time taken to deal with his application and his earlier correspondence. The reconsideration application was placed before me today and I have dealt with it the same day so that the Claimant is not delayed further. Graham Approved by