Mr P Dumitru v Pacadar UK Ltd and Continental Networks Ltd: 6005509/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]Neither respondent having filed a response to the claim, judgment is given for the claimant against each.[2]Compensation or other remedy will be assessed at a remedy hearing, details of which will be provided in due course. Employment Judge Fowell Date 19 August 2024 Case Number: 6005509/2024 1 of 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr P Dumitru Respondent:(1) PACADAR Limited(2) Continental Networks Ltd Heard at: London (South) (via CVP) On: 21 January 2025 Before: Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances For the claimant: In Person For the 1st respondent: Mr J Kapadia (Counsel) For the 2nd respondent Mr C Ushieagu (Consultant)[1]The judgment entered on 19 August 2024 under Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 is revoked because it is necessary in the interests of justice, the responses from each respondent now having been accepted after extensions of time were granted.[2]The claimant’s complaint that the redundancy process launch was a detriment caused by his protected disclosure(s) is dismissed because it was brought out of time when it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought within time; the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.[3]The claimant’s complaint of automatic unfair dismissal following alleged protected disclosure(s) is not affected by this judgment. ________________________ Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Date: 21 January 2025 Sent to the parties on Date: 18 March 2025 Case Number: 6005509/2024 1 of 3 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Respondent: Mr P Dumitru v(1) PADACAR UK Limited(2) Continental Networks Limited On the papers before: Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer On: 15 April 2025REASONS
[1]On 21 January 2025, I decided it was in the interests of justice to revoke the Rule 21 judgment in favour of the claimant. I decided it was necessary in the interests of justice to do so, for the reasons given at the time. The claimant now applies for reconsideration of the decision to revoke that judgment. Principles of Reconsideration[2]As is set out in Rule 68, I may reconsider a judgment where I consider it is necessary in the interest of justice to do so. The application has been made in time. Case Number: 6005509/2024 2 of 3[3]The interest of justice in this case should be measured as a balance between both parties; both the applicant and the respondent to a reconsideration application have interests which much be regarded against the interests of justice (Outasight VB Limited v Brown [2014] UKEAT/0253/14).[4]In Brown, Her Honour Judge Eady QC (as was) said that the general public also have an interest in such cases because there should be an expectation of the finality of litigation. This was an expectation outlined by Mr Justice Phillips in Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR936, who said “it is very much in the interests of the general public that proceedings of this kind should be as final as possible”. He also said it was unjust to give the loser in litigation a “second bite of the cherry” where, having lost and learnt of the reasons for losing, a litigant seeks to re-argue points and bring additional evidence or information which would overcome the reasons given for the loss. Grounds and reasons of reconsideration application[5]The application is advanced under 6 headings:- 5.1. The respondents knew of the proceedings because of the ACAS process in May- June 2024; 5.2. The ET1 was submitted on time; 5.3. The respondents failed to file the ET3 on time; 5.4. The claimant had evidence of making protected disclosures; 5.5. The respondents have no real defence on the merits; and 5.6. The overriding objective and the interests of justice favour the original judgment standing. Decision on the reconsideration application[6]I am the Judge who made the decision subject of reconsideration, and so it is for me to consider this application and how it should be dealt with.[7]All six of the heads of arguments raised in the application were raised in the hearing before me which led to my decision to revoke the judgment the claimant wishes to have reinstated. Even if more detail is added now (and it is not clear to me that there is more detail or any difference in emphasis), then the claimant’s opportunity to present that detail and emphasis was in the hearing before me.[8]The application is a re-working of the written submissions presented to me in the last hearing, which the claimant said he had generated using an artificial intelligence platform. The application is an impermissible attempt to have a second bite of the cherry in respect of a decision which has already been made. Case Number: 6005509/2024 3 of 3[9]There is plainly no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. The application is therefore refused. The respondents need not respond to the application. Approved by: