Mr M VelichovClaimantPersimmon Homes LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge ParkDate 22 January 2026
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s application for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 5 November 2025 is refused.
REASONS
[1]Under Part 12 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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 within 14 days of the date the Judgment is sent to the parties. The Judgment in this case was sent to the parties on 5 November 2025. The relevant Judgment related to whether or not the claimant was disabled at the relevant time as defined by the Equality Act 2010. I concluded that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time due to his back pain/Spondylitis. I concluded he was not disabled at the relevant time, which was before 23 June 2024, due to depression and anxiety or due to joint and muscle plain/neuropathic pain.[3]On 6 November 2025 the claimant sent an email to the Employment Tribunal an application for reconsideration. The claimant said he sought reconsideration of the decision that he was not disabled due to joint and muscle plain/neuropathic pain. He said that the Judgment referred to “neuropathic pain” but he had medical evidence that “clarifies that these symptoms are now diagnosed as Fibromyalgia, a chronic condition.” Attached to the application were the following documents: 3.1. A letter dated 10 October 2025 from a specialist to the claimant’s GP confirming that the claimant fitted the criteria for fibromyalgia, but also indicating that this was a descriptive term rather than a diagnosis. 3.2. A letter from the claimant’s GP dated 16 October 2025 sending that same letter to the Pain Team.[4]In his application the claimant said that he relied on this new evidence and suggested that if this medical evidence had been provided at the hearing a different conclusion may have been reached on the issue of whether his impairment, which is now identified as being fibromyalgia, met the long term requirement.[5]Under Rule 68, a Judgment will only be reconsidered where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. This allows an Employment Tribunal 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 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.[6]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 Judgement being varied or revoked. Essentially, this is a reviewing function in which the Employment Judge must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of the judgment being reconsidered 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.[7]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.[8]The Employment Appeal Tribunal has given guidance as to the nature of a request for reconsideration: 8.1. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to re-litigate matters that have already been litigated, or to re-argue matters in a different way or adopting points previously omitted. 8.2. There is an 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. 8.3. It is not a means by which to have a second bite at the cherry, or is it 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. 8.4. Tribunals have a wide discretion whether or not to order reconsideration. Where a matter has been fully ventilated and properly argued, and in the absence of any identifiable administrative error or event occurring after the hearing that requires a reconsideration in the interests of justice, any asserted error of law is to be corrected on appeal and not through the back door by way of a reconsideration application.[9]The claimant has asked that the Judgement is reconsidered because he says that had I had the new evidence I may have reached a different conclusion on whether he was disabled due to joint and muscle plain/neuropathic pain, which is now confirmed to meet the definition of fibromyalgia. The new evidence relied on post-dates the hearing, which was on 16 July 2025.[10]The issue for me to determine at the hearing was whether the claimant was disabled due to the conditions he relies on at the relevant time. The claimant’s employment with the respondent ended on 23 June 2024. This meant that the relevant time was before this date. Deciding whether the claimant met the definition of being disabled at the relevant time required considering what the position was at the time. This lens is equally applied to the question of whether any particular impairment is long term. If the condition had not already lasted for 12 months or more at the relevant time the question is determined by assessing whether the evidence indicates that at the time it was already apparent that it was likely to last 12 months or more. This question can only be answered by considering the evidence from the time. It is not permissible to consider the question with the benefit of hindsight, based on subsequent developments in the individual’s health.[11]At the hearing I was provided with medical evidence from 2022-2024 and a witness statement by the claimant. I considered all this evidence and concluded that the claimant’s joint and muscle plain/neuropathic pain was a relatively new condition and there was no evidence that showed that in June 2024 it was apparent that it was likely to last for 12 months or more.[12]The evidence the claimant has provided is from October 2025. This is over a year after the claimant’s employment with the respondent. The evidence is about the claimant’s medical condition in 2025, not his medical condition in the months before the termination of his employment June 2024. It has no relevance to the question of whether the claimant was disabled due to his joint and muscle plain/neuropathic pain at the relevant time. Had the claimant provided this evidence at the hearing in July 2025 no weight would have been attached to it as it would not have assisted in answering the questions that needed to be determined.[13]The evidence the claimant has included his application for a reconsideration would not have made any difference to the conclusions on disability reached following the hearing on 16 July 2025. There are no reasonable prospects of the judgment being varied or revoked based on this new evidence.[14]I am not satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to reconsider the Judgment. Therefore, the application for reconsideration is refused.