Miss L Benassar v Innovate IFG Impact Food Group: 3313082/2023
REASONS
[1]On 17 June 2024 the tribunal sent to the claimant’s representative a confirmation of dismissal of her claim under what was then rule 27 of the Employment Tribunals’ Rules of Procedure 2013.[2]Although not formally described as such, I regard such a document as amounting to a “judgment” under what was then rule 1(3), so as to be susceptible to reconsideration under rule 71.[3]Under what was then rule 71 (emphasis added) “… an application for reconsideration shall be presented in writing (and copied to all the other parties) within 14 days of the date on which the written record … of the original decision was sent to the parties”.[4]On 19 June 2024 the claimant’s representative wrote to the tribunal asking for “a reconsideration of the dismissal of the case”. This application was made within the 14 day time limit but was addressed only to the tribunal and not copied to the respondent. Various chasing emails from the claimant’s representative followed through to March 2025, but none were copied to the respondent. On 14 March 2025 I gave a direction that the claimant’s representative should be notified that correspondence sent to the tribunal should also be sent to the respondent, and that any correspondence sent to the tribunal but not copied to the respondent would not be considered.[5]On 6 May 2025 the claimant’s representative said that she had copied some of the chasing emails to the respondent, but this seemed not to include the original application. On 23 July 2025 the claimant’s representative was written to by the tribunal (at my direction) in the following terms: “It appears that Claimant’s representative has still not sent a copy of her application for reconsideration dated 19 June 2024 to the Respondent. This is the only application for reconsideration made within the necessary time limit. No application for extension of time has been made so it is only that application that could be effective.”[6]On 25 July 2025 the claimant’s representative wrote to say that she had now copied that application to the respondent’s representative.[7]So what is the position where an application for reconsideration was made within time but did not comply with rule 71 as it was not copied to the respondent until over a year later?[8]On the face of it, the requirement is for the written application to be sent to the tribunal and copied to the other party within 14 days. There is no suggestion in what was rule 71 that separate time limits might apply to the requirement to send the document to the tribunal and copy it to the other party.[9]The failure by the claimant to copy her application to the respondent within 14 days is something that could be waived as a “failure to comply with any provision of these rules” under rule 6(a), but I would have to consider whether it is in the interests of justice to waive that requirement.[10]A factor in favour of waiving the requirement are that the basis of the application is that the claimant’s representative never received the original notice and order. Although the tribunal’s records show it as having been sent I am unable to ascertain by what means it was sent, so there may be some underlying merit in the substance of the reconsideration application.[11]Factors against waiving the requirement are:a. The effect of that application not having been copied to the respondent is that the respondent only now knows of a challenge to a decision, more than a year after it was made.b. The claimant’s representative has not given any good reason why the application was not originally copied to the respondent.c. Although the original notice and order was resent to the claimant on 20 November 2024 there remains no response to that notice and order.[12]Balancing those factors against each other, I refuse the application for reconsideration on the basis that it did not comply with rule 71 and it is not in the interests of justice to waive the requirement for the application to be copied to the respondent within 14 days. Approved by