Mr D Hannigan v Metropolitan School of Business and Management UK Ltd: 6003975/2024
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s application dated 20 March 2025 for reconsideration of the Judgment sent to the parties on 20 March 2025 is refused as there is no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked.REASONS
[1]By Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the Employment Tribunal may, either on its own initiative or on the application of a party, reconsider a Judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. On reconsideration, the Judgment may be confirmed, varied or revoked.[2]An application for reconsideration shall be presented in writing (and copied to all of the other parties) within 14 days of the date upon which the written record was sent to the parties. In this case the application for reconsideration was sent on 20 March 2025.[3]Under Rule 70, a Judgment will only be reconsidered where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. This allows an Employment Tribunal a broad discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a Judgment is appropriate in the circumstances. The discretion must be exercised judicially. This means having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the reconsideration but also the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation.[4]The procedure upon a reconsideration application is for the Employment Judge that heard the case to consider the application and determine if there are reasonable prospects of the Judgment being varied or revoked. Essentially, this is a reviewing function in which the Employment Judge must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of reconsideration in the interests of justice. There must be some basis for reconsideration. It is insufficient for an applicant to apply simply because he or she disagrees with the decision. Case Number 6003975/2024[5]If the Employment Judge considers that there is no such reasonable prospect, then the application shall be refused. Otherwise, the original decision shall be reconsidered at a subsequent reconsideration hearing. The Employment Judge’s role therefore upon the considering of the application upon the papers initially is to operate as a filter to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked were the matter to be the subject of reconsideration hearing.[6]A final hearing in this matter took place on 14 March 2025. Neither party attended the hearing, which was held virtually on Cloud Video Platform (“CVP”).[7]Under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal rules of procedure, I can dismiss a claim if a party does not attend the hearing. Before doing so, rule 47 provides that I shall consider any information which is available to me, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.[8]In accordance with rule 47, the clerk endeavoured to contact the claimant to establish his reason for non-attendance. Despite several telephone calls, he was unable to contact the claimant. There was no correspondence on file from the claimant to explain his absence.[9]In his application for reconsideration, the claimant says he was unable to attend the hearing due to the passing of a family member after a long battle with cancer. However, he provides no information as to why he did not inform the Tribunal at the time of the hearing or as soon as practicable thereafter. He also provides no details about his bereavement.[10]He raises a number of issues that are not relevant to his claim for unpaid wages and notice pay. The primary issue for consideration was whether the respondent was his employer. He provides further information in his application that he could have provided for the final hearing if he wished it to be considered. However, it does not undermine that fact that the respondent in this matter was not incorporated when the claimant was contracted to undertake work and was not his employer.[11]I am not satisfied that there is any reasonable prospect of the Judgment or any part of it being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration is therefore refused.