B RoyceClaimantSpork Digital LtdRespondentNo present or represented for claimantMr R Pasha (instructed by Solicitor) for respondentDate 8 September 2025
JUDGMENT
ON RECONSIDERATION The application for reconsideration is refused as there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
REASONS
[1]This is the claimant’s application under Rules 70–73 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 seeking reconsideration of my judgment dated 8 September 2025, by which the claim was dismissed under Rule 47 for non‑attendance. The application is opposed by the respondent, who has filed written submissions.[2]I have considered the claimant’s application, the respondent’s response, the supporting documents from both parties, and the Tribunal’s own file. I apply Rule 68, which permits a judgment to be reconsidered only where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. The relevant legal principles are summarised in the material provided.
The legal framework
[3]Under Rule 47, where a party fails to attend a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed in the party’s absence. Before doing so the Tribunal must consider any available information about the reason for absence. The Tribunal may, where appropriate, adjourn a hearing using its general case‑management powers (Rules 30 and 41)[4]Rule 68 gives the Tribunal a broad but judicial discretion to reconsider a judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice. This requires balancing:a. the position of the party seeking reconsideration,b. the interests of the other party, andc. the public interest in finality of litigation.[5]Reconsideration is not a mechanism for a disappointed party to have a second attempt at presenting their case[6]The overriding objective (Rule 3) requires the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly, including ensuring proportionality, avoiding delay, and ensuring parties are on an equal footing.[7]Reconsideration may be appropriate where there has been a procedural mishap depriving a party of a fair opportunity to present their case (Trimble v Supertravel 1982 ICR 440, EAT). It is not appropriate where the party had that opportunity but failed to take it (Ebury Partners UK Ltd v Acton Davis 2023 IRLR 486, EAT)
Findings of fact
[8]The Tribunal’s file shows that a Notice of Preliminary Hearing dated 12 April 2025 was generated and issued listing a case management preliminary hearing for 8 September 2025 at 14:00, by video. The respondent states it received that document alongside the ET1; I accept that evidence. The claimant has produced no evidence that he did not receive it, only screenshots showing that he did not upload a copy.[9]The claimant’s own screenshots (BR‑3) show that he viewed a tribunal notification dated 12 April 2025: “Notice for preliminary hearing for case management viewed.”[10]The portal also records that on 14 July 2025 the claimant viewed Tribunal correspondence (BR‑3 and BR‑4). This correspondence was a case‑management order requiring:a. a schedule of loss; andb. a response to the list of issues by dates specified. The claimant did not comply with either.[11]On 25 July 2025 the respondent wrote to the claimant (copy produced in its response), attaching the bundle, identifying it expressly as: “Bundle of Documents for CMD on 8 September 2025”, and reminding him of the deadline to reply by 8 August 2025. The claimant did not reply.[12]The claimant’s strike‑out application of 25 May 2025 was determined and refused by Legal Officer Maddock on 14 July 2025. The claimant viewed Tribunal correspondence on that date. This contradicts his assertion that the application remained pending.[13]The claimant made no application to postpone, made no contact before the hearing, and did not attend on 8 September 2025. Assessment of the grounds Alleged lack of notice[14]The claimant asserts he did not receive notice of the hearing. This assertion is inconsistent with:a. The portal record confirming he viewed the 12 April notification;b. the respondent’s receipt of the same notice;c. his viewing of Tribunal correspondence on 14 July; andd. his failure to respond to the respondent’s 25 July email expressly referring to the hearing on 8 September.[15]On the evidence available, I find that the claimant was properly notified of the hearing and that he knew, or reasonably should have known, the hearing date. There was no procedural mishap relating to service. Alleged absence of directions and “pending” strike‑out application[16]The evidence clearly shows the claimant received the Tribunal’s 14 July case‑management order and did not comply. The strike‑out application had been determined. His grounds are therefore factually incorrect. Alleged failure to adjourn[17]The question is not whether an adjournment could hypothetically have been ordered under Rules 30 or 41, but whether the Tribunal erred in exercising Rule 47 discretion on the information available at the time. The claimant had given no communication, no explanation, and no indication of wishing to attend.[18]There was therefore no basis on which I could have adjourned. Rule 47 was properly applied. Overriding Objective and Article 6 ECHR[19]Article 6 requires a fair opportunity to present one’s case. The claimant had:a. the hearing notice;b. case‑management directions;c. repeated opportunities to respond to correspondence;d. ample opportunity to apply for a postponement or clarification.[20]The claimant’s failure to engage with the process is not a basis for concluding that the interests of justice require reopening the case. As emphasised in Redding v EMI Leisure, EAT 262/81 justice is owed to both parties. Interests of justice test[21]Applying Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11, EAT I must weigh the interests of both sides and the public interest in finality. The claimant has not shown any procedural irregularity, mishap, or unfairness. His non‑attendance was the result of his own failure to engage.[22]This is not a case in which reconsideration is warranted to correct an injustice or procedural failing. It is, rather, an attempt to relitigate the consequences of the claimant’s own omissions, the “second bite of the cherry” problem identified in Ebury Partners.
Conclusion
[23]I am not satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment. There was no procedural irregularity. The claimant had proper notice of the hearing, failed to comply with Tribunal orders, failed to engage with correspondence, failed to attend and provided no contemporaneous explanation.[24]The application for reconsideration is therefore refused. Approved by: