Mr D Canavan v Birmingham Hospitality Holdings Ltd (previously known as Stout & Stone Inns Ltd): 6017281/2025
JUDGMENT
The application made on 31 October 2025, which appears to have been made on behalf of the respondent, for reconsideration of the Judgment made on 11 September 2025 and sent to the parties on 10 October 2025, is refused.REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because:[1]The Judgment was issued after no response was submitted by the respondent.[2]The application to reconsider says that the respondent did not receive the notice of hearing.[3]The Judgment was not made at a hearing. It was made because a response was not submitted within the time required, and I decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim on the material available.[4]On that basis, the application for reconsideration has no reasonable prospect of success.[5]The application does not provide a response to the claim or any detail about why it is said that the respondent may have had a defence to the claim, or why it is said the claimant was paid the wages which had been found to have been the subject of an unauthorised deduction..[6]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 70). Finality is important. In exercising the discretion, I must have regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the 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. Case No. 6017281/2025[7]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. That must be conducted in accordance with the overriding objective which appears in rule 3, namely to deal with cases fairly and justly. This includes, so far as practicable, saving expense. Achieving finality in litigation is part of a fair and just adjudication.[8]I do not find that it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the Judgment, based upon the application made on behalf of the respondent. There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, based upon the reason given. The application for reconsideration is refused.