Miss R Cooper v East Street Trading Services Ltd: 6005147/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6005147/2025
Between
Miss R CooperClaimantEast Street Trading Services Ltd RECONSIDERATON JUDGMENT 1. The Respondent’s application dated 21 February 2026 (“ the Application” ) for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 13 February 2026 in which a decision was made in favour of the Claimant in accordance with Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“ the Judgment ”), is refused.RespondentDate 12 March 2026
REASONS
[2]The Application says (this is as it appears in the correspondence): “in regards to the email received stating the judgment for the case of rebecca cooper vs east st trading service ltd has sided with the claimant how do we as a the company go about appealing that decision if possible as the company was in its rights to make changes to hours , everything was done legally, as the claimant is threatening with bailiffs if the payment is not made within 7 days of receiving the email in regards to the judgment when hours was cut all staff members had hours cut from the business declining and not taking as much as we have done, all staff members was given a verbal warning in advance that it was happening, and the claimant was given a written notice of hour changes upon request so unsure on why/how the claimant is owed unauthorised wage deductions on that decision 1 of 6 any help would be greatly appreciated many thanks east st fruit market”[3]The Judgment included the normal link to guidance on appeal of an Employment Tribunal decision and application for reconsideration of an Employment Tribunal judgment.[4]On 24 February 2026 the respondent wrote (this is as it appears in the correspondence): “Dear whomever it concerns, i wish to appeal/ ask for reconsideration on the case 6005147/2025 case miss r cooper v east st trading service i have attached two files hope to hear back soon many thanks”[5]With that email the Respondent attached a document which said (this is as it appears in the correspondence): “Dear Whomever it concerns Im writing the from East st trading service LTD., as employment tribunal judgment was issued to the business under case number: 6005147/2025 we are writing over to either appeal the decision or to ask for consideration Under the statements of the fact the staff hours being cut at the time was a result of economic downturn with the high street becoming more quiet overtime, and couldn't afford to pay the wage bill I had transferred over to me when we had a full business purchase in the end of 2022 The cut of hours happened two years after a full business purchase from the previous owner, with the hours being cut in the February of 2025 so TUPE LAWS although a permanent law that law I don't think would be in affect for this, and it would fall under contract laws which as a result the hours cut was done lawfully for all staff members so don't think unauthorised deductions from wages is right all members of staff was given a verbal warning of the cuts with most if not all gj-ven written notice when asked 2 of 6 many thanks East st trading service LTD”
consideration
[6]It also attached a Notice of Appeal T444 Form 1 which was presumably also sent to the Employment Appeal Tribunal with other necessary documents (as appeals cannot be made to the Employment Tribunal).
The Law
[7]Rules 68 to 71 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (the “Rules”) provide: Reconsideration of judgments Principles 68.—(1) The Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. (2) A judgment under reconsideration may be confirmed, varied or revoked. (3) If the judgment under reconsideration is revoked the Tribunal may take the decision again. In doing so, the Tribunal is not required to come to the same conclusion. Application for reconsideration 69. Except where it is made in the course of a hearing, an application for reconsideration must be made in writing setting out why reconsideration is necessary and must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the later of—(a) the date on which the written record of the judgment sought to be reconsidered was sent to the parties, or(b) the date that the written reasons were sent, if these were sent separately. Process for reconsideration 70.—(1) The Tribunal must consider any application made under rule 69 (application for reconsideration). (2) If the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application must be refused and the Tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal. 3 of 6 (3) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the Tribunal must send a notice to the parties specifying the period by which any written representations in respect of the application must be received by the Tribunal, and seeking the views of the parties on whether the application can be determined without a hearing. The notice may also set out the Tribunal’s provisional views on the application. (4) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the judgment must be reconsidered at a hearing unless the Tribunal considers, having regard to any written representations provided under paragraph (3), that a hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice. (5) If the Tribunal determines the application without a hearing the parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to make further written representations in respect of the application. Reconsideration by the Tribunal on its own initiative 71. Where the Tribunal proposes to reconsider a judgment on its own initiative, it must inform the parties of the reasons why the decision is being reconsidered and the judgment must be reconsidered (as if an application had been made and not refused) in accordance with rule 70(3) to (5) (process for reconsideration).[8]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).[9]Rule 70(2) empowers me to refuse the application based on preliminary consideration if there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[10]The importance of finality was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714 in July 2016 where Elias LJ said that: “the discretion to act in the interests of justice is not open-ended; it should be exercised in a principled way, and the earlier case law cannot be ignored. In particular, the courts have emphasised the importance of finality (Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395) which militates against the discretion being exercised too readily; and in Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 384 Mummery J held that the failure of a party's representative to draw attention to a particular argument will not generally justify granting a review.”[11]Similarly in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16 the EAT chaired by 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 4 of 6 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.”[12]In common with all powers under the Rules, preliminary consideration under Rule 70 (2) must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in Rule 3. The Application[13]As I note above, preliminary assessment of an application for reconsideration must be carried out in accordance with Rule 3 (which requires that cases are dealt with 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.[14]I have given full consideration to the grounds set out by the Respondent. The deadline for response to the Claim was 11 April 2025 (as per the Notice of Claim which was returned as undelivered). The Claim was reserved to an alternative address on 11 August 2025 with a deadline of 8 September 2205. A response was received after that deadline on 15 September 2025 but with no application to extend the deadline for response. On 2 December 2025 Employment Judge Bax wrote to the Respondent rejecting its response and saying: “under rule 19 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, the response must be rejected because it was presented out of time and there was no application to extend time. A judgment may now be issued and you will only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge who hears the case. The accompanying notes ‘Response Rejection – Your Questions Answered’ explain the steps that are now open to you as a result of this rejection”. No further correspondence was received from the Respondent to make an application to extend the deadline for response and submit a response. Accordingly judgment was issued under Rule 22 awarding the Claimant unauthorised deductions from wages in the sum of £597. The Application sets out no good basis on which the Judgment should be reconsidered in these circumstances.[15]I mean no disrespect to the Respondent in giving these brief reasons for my decision on its application. I have had to take into account the need for proportionality (not only as regards the parties and issues in this claim but also as regards the interests of the many other Tribunal service users).
Conclusion
[16]Having considered all the points made by the Respondent I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration is refused in particular because of the importance of the principle of the finality of litigation. 5 of 6