Ms P D Ndegeyo v Serenata Care T/a Two Cedars Residential Care Home: 6013961/2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The judgment of the tribunal is that:- 1. The claimant’s application for interim relief pursuant s128 Employment Rights Act 1996 is dismissed. ---1--- Case No: 6013961/2026 (Summary Reasons were given orally during the hearing, and as explained orally, either party is entitled to request in writing within 14 days of the date on which this judgment is a) Summary Written Reasons; or b) Full Written Reasons) Judgment Approved by EJ Cadney Dated: 18th May 2026 Judgment sent to parties on: 18 June 2026 ---2---[2]JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL EMPLOYMENT JUDGE MR P CADNEY MEMBERS: (SITTING ALONE) APPEARANCES:- FOR THE CLAIMANT:- WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT:- RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT The judgment of the tribunal is that:- 1. The claimant’s application for reconsideration is dismissed.REASONS
[1]On 26th May 2026 I heard and dismissed the claimant’s application for interim relief.[2]The claimant has sought both written reasons for the decision given orally; and made an application for reconsideration of that decision. She has supplied a written application and extracts from the bundles already before the tribunal, in support of the application. ---1---[3]Summary written reasons are supplied separately; and in this reconsideration judgment I will determine the reconsideration application.[4]General Power - Rule 70 of the ET Rules gives the tribunal a general power on reconsideration to confirm, vary or revoke the original decision where it is in the interests of justice to do so. However that does not give the tribunal a completely freestanding discretion to reconsider or vary/set aside any judgment In Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11, EAT, HHJ Eady QC accepted that the wording ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ allows employment tribunals a broad discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a judgment is appropriate in the circumstances. However, this discretion must be exercised judicially, ‘which means having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the review or reconsideration, but also to 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’.[5]Reasons for the original decision - In summary I concluded that the claimant had not met the threshold of demonstrating that it was “likely” as defined in relation to s129 ERA that: i) She had made a protected disclosure within the meaning of s43B ERA 1996 (although the issues in respect of the external disclosure made on 7th March 2026 were very finely balanced); and/or, ii) That the reason or principal reason for her dismissal was the making of the asserted protected disclosures. Reconsideration Application[6]Protected Disclosures - The basis of the application is “..an oversight regarding the material evidence I provided in the bundle.” The claimant contends that the evidence demonstrates to the required standard that: i) Her disclosure met the requirements for a protected disclosure, and that any asserted factual disputes are fictitious; ii) That the respondent’s contention that there was a factual dispute as to whether the claimant had orally informed the respondent prior to her dismissal that she was going to make the disclosure to the CQC/BCP.is equally fictitious; iii) That the disclosures made between 4th – 6th March 2026 were protected disclosures and that the suspension was itself in response to those earlier disclosures; and ---2--- iv) That in particular the respondent has not, and did not in the hearing or the information provided, set out any basis for her suspension; from which the tribunal should draw the inference that it was the disclosures; v) That there is no basis for any assertion that the external disclosure made on 7th March 2026 was in fact made by her as retaliation for being suspended on 6th March 2026;[7]Put simply all the matters raised in the reconsideration application were matters that were before me and considered in the hearing. As set out in the Summary Written Reasons it may be that one or more of asserted disclosures will be held to be public interest disclosures once the evidence is fully examined. However the question before me was not whether it is arguable or possible that those findings will be made, but whether judged against the information before me in what involves a summary assessment of that information, whether that outcome is “likely”.[8]In my judgement there is nothing in the material placed before me in the reconsideration application which causes me to alter my earlier conclusion, and to conclude that a finding that one or more of the disclosures was a protected disclosures is “likely” to be made.[9]Dismissal – The claimant asserts that : i) The timing of the dismissal is consistent with a causal link between any protected disclosure and the dismissal; ii) She asserts that it is arguable that the dismissal was causally linked to the disclosures. iii) She asserts that the respondent has not produced sufficient evidence of any performance, or other issues, which would justify dismissal, and that the inference should be drawn that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the making of one or more of the protected disclosures.[10]Again all of the matters placed before me in the reconsideration application were before me and were taken into account in reaching the original decision. As set out above the test that I was required to apply in determining whether to make a reinstatement, re-engagement or continuation of contract order, is not whether the claimant’s claim is arguable; but whether it is likely (as defined in the written reasons) that she will succeed. I agree that the claimant’s case that she made one or more protected disclosures is arguable; and that it is arguable that her dismissal was causally connected to any disclosure. However in order to reach those conclusions the tribunal will have to resolve significant disputes of fact and law, and there was in my judgement insufficient information before me to allow me to conclude that the issues in dispute had crossed the threshold from being arguable, especially in relation to dismissal, to a favourable outcome for the claimant being “likely” ---3---[11]Again in relation to dismissal, I am not persuaded that the matters and information placed before me in the reconsideration application cause me to alter the conclusions that I reached initially.[12]It follows that the claimant’s application for reconsideration must be dismissed. Judgment Approved by EJ Cadney Dated: 11th June 2026 Judgment sent to parties on: 18 June 2026 ---4---