The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s application for reconsideration of the judgment dated 19 November 2024 is refused.
REASONS
[1]The claimant has sought reconsideration of the judgment dated 19 November 2024 dismissing her claim under what was Rule 52 (now Rule 51). This is opposed by the respondent.[2]The Tribunal has the power to reconsider a judgment under Rule 68 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The only ground on which the Tribunal can reconsider is that it is in the interests of justice to do so.[3]The “interests of justice” test gives the Tribunal a broad but not unlimited discretion when reconsidering a decision. The Tribunal has to give regard to the principle of finality in litigation (Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council v Marsden [2010] ICR 743) and the power to reconsider is not there to deal with matters which should more properly be a matter of appeal (Trimble v Supertravel Ltd [1982] IRLR 451). The Tribunal has to approach the question of whether reconsideration is in the interests of justice by having regard to the justice to be done to both sides of the case (Redding v EMI Leisure Ltd EAT 262/81).[4]The claimant’s application for reconsideration is based on the fact that she intends to pursue claims against the respondent in the civil courts under the Protection for Harassment Act 1997 as well as for personal injury and breach of contract.[5]The Tribunal pauses to note that the claimant did not say this to the Tribunal when she objected to the claim in this tribunal being dismissed. Rather, in correspondence dated 6 November 2024 sent after the claim had been withdrawn, she stated that she intended to bring “such a further claim” at some unspecified time in the future. The plain reading of that is that the claimant was expressing the intention to raise the same claims in the Employment Tribunal that were the subject of the present proceedings.[6]The claimant’s stated position is now different and she has indicated that she intends to pursue different causes of action (some of which that do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction) in a different forum. However, as both the claimant and respondent point out, the November judgment does not preclude the claimant from pursuing such claims in a different forum; the judgment only prevents the claimant raising the same causes of action in the Tribunal.[7]The respondent has indicated an intention to advance other defences to any future claims but those are not matters which the present Tribunal needs to address in determining the reconsideration application. These are issues to be addressed by a different court or Tribunal in the future in the event that the claimant does raise the proceedings suggested.[8]In these circumstances, there is no need for the previous judgment to be reconsidered and set aside to achieve the claimant’s aim of being able to pursue other claims in a different forum in the future. The application is wholly unnecessary and there is no basis on which the Tribunal could conclude that it was in the interests of justice for the judgment to be reconsidered; the claimant advances no other argument why the judgment should be set aside other than her stated desire to pursue future claims in a different forum.[9]Indeed, for the same reasons that the Tribunal dismissed the claim (in particular, the need for finality in litigation in respect of the present proceedings), the Tribunal considers that it remains the case that it is in the interests of justice for the claim to be dismissed.[10]In correspondence dated 19 December 2024, the claimant raised an alternative application that she be allowed to rescind her withdrawal and the Tribunal proceedings be revived. This is also opposed by the respondent.[11]Rule 50 (formerly Rule 51) clearly and unambiguously states that where a claim is withdrawn then it is at an end. There is no power for the Tribunal to set aside an unequivocal withdrawal (Khan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust [2006] IRLR 793).[12]The proceedings are, therefore, concluded and there is no scope for them to be revived by the claimant.