Ms T Lord-Stamp v Mace Consult Ltd and Others: 6002839/2024 and 6002176/2025
JUDGMENT
The respondent’s application dated 4 July 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 22 June 2025 is refused.REASONS
[1]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because substantially the same application has already been made and refused. Time limits[2]The issue of time will be dealt with at the final hearing, having had the benefit of hearing all the evidence. A Tribunal should only strike out discrimination cases in the most obvious and plain cases because they are often fact sensitive. The claimant alleges that both named respondents made false allegations in a grievance report in mid-August. There may be an argument of conduct extending over a period of time and a Tribunal has discretion to extend time if it is just and equitable to do so. In this case it is appropriate for all the facts to be heard before any decision on time and exercising discretion in relation to time is made. Res Judicata / Abuse of the process[3]On 20 February 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the parties informing them that the legal officer was of the opinion that the claims should be considered together because they appear to give rise to common or related issues of fact and law and parties were given the opportunity to make written representations.[4]At the preliminary hearing (PH) before EJ Keogh on 3 April 2025 it was confirmed in the case summary to that PH that the only applications to be considered at that hearing were the application to amend the first claim and the application to postpone the final hearing. It was agreed a further hearing was needed to deal with the status of the second claim, including any application to consolidate.[5]EJ Keogh refused the claimant’s application to amend the first claim to add the named individual respondents but stated “This of course leaves the second claim against the individual respondents, which may be out of time (subject to extensions of time). Submissions will be needed as to how that second claim should be treated.”[6]Although the claimant’s second claim was the same as her first claim and attached the claimant’s amended particulars of claim from the first claim, the second claim was against two individually named respondents, the second and third respondents, and postdated her dismissal. The claimant emphasised to the Tribunal at the PH in June 2025 that her second claim was about her dismissal, and this is reflected in the agreed updated list of issues, prepared after the PH before EJ Keogh. It was agreed that the list of issues covered both claims.[7]It is clear from EJ Keogh order that the two claims were dealt with separately due to lack of time but that the list of issues would cover both cases. It is reasonable and sensible for the list of issues to cover both claims in preparation for the next PH.[8]No decision was made in relation to the second claim at the first PH. Therefore the application under res judicata/ abuse of process cannot succeed. Approved by