Mrs F Miller v Advanced Optical Ltd (In Administration): 3314306/2023
JUDGMENT
...................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing, or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunaldecisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved, or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislationpractice- directions/ Case No: 3314306/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs Felicia Miller Respondent: Advanced Optical Ltd (In Administration) RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT[1]The Claimant’s application dated 16 October 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment given orally on 3 October 2025 is refused. The Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reconsider its judgment.REASONS
[1]I have undertaken preliminary consideration of the Claimant's application for reconsideration. The Claimant’s application appears to be based upon an argument that the Claimant already put before the Employment Tribunal, which the Employment Tribunal considered.[2]The Claimant told the Employment Tribunal that her day rate was £288 based upon the working year being 260 days a year. The Employment Tribunal told the Claimant that the law stated that if an employee is salaried that the day rate is calculated on the basis of a 365 day year. This is a legal argument. If the Claimant is unhappy about the application of the Apportionment Act 1870, which determines that her day rate is calculated on the basis of 365 days, not 260 days, then the Claimant would need to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.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 70(1) 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. Case No: 3314306/2023[5]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 P 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.”[6]In common with all powers under the ETPR, preliminary consideration under rule 70(1) 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.[7]The EAT held in Ameyaw v PricewaterhouseCoopers Services Ltd EAT 0291/19, that an application for reconsideration is not a vehicle for challenging a tribunal’s reasons or, insofar as they do not form part of the essential reasoning upon which the decision is based, other things said by the tribunal in arriving at its decision.Conclusion
[8]I have considered the Claimant’s application, although the Claimant does not mention in that application that she wants a reconsideration, I am treating her application as such, as there is no other power available to the Employment Tribunal to change the judgment. The Claimant’s application requires the Employment Tribunal to reconsider its application of the law. Applying the reasoning of the EAT in Ameyaw v PricewaterhouseCoopers Services Ltd, it appears to the Employment Tribunal that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the Claimant’s application. The application for reconsideration is refused. Approved by: Employment Judge Young DATED 27 October 2025