GovWire

Costs added

Case No: 3300866/202210.7 Judgment with reasons rule 62EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALSClaimant: Mrs S N LaiqueRespondent: Al Iman Community Educational Services Ltd.JUDGMENT OF THEEMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALHeld in Chambers at: Reading ET On: 10 July 2023Before: Employment Judge G. KingJUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FORRECONSIDERATIONThe judgment of the Tribunal is that the Claimants application forreconsideration is refused because there is no reasonable prospect of thedecision being varied or revoked.REASONS1. The Claimant has applied for a reconsideration of the reserved judgmentdated 24 April 2023 (the Judgment). The grounds are set out in heremail dated 18 May 2023 which was received at the Tribunal office on thesame day.2. This has been a remote hearing on the papers. A face-to-face hearingwas not held because it was not practicable and all issues could bedetermined in a remote hearing.3. Schedule 1 of The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules ofProcedure) Regulations 2013 contains the Employment Tribunal Rules ofProcedure 2013 (the Rules). Under Rule 71 an application forreconsideration under Rule 70 must be made within 14 days of the date onwhich the decision (or, if later, the written reasons) were sent to theCase No: 3300866/202210.7 Judgment with reasons rule 62parties. The application was therefore received within the relevant timelimit.4. Under Rule 5 the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application ofa party, extend or shorten any time limit specified in the Rules or in anydecision, whether or not (in the case of an extension) it has expired.5. The grounds for reconsideration are only those set out in Rule 70, namelythat it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.6. The grounds relied upon by the Claimant are as below, copied from theClaimants email:The only point I want to mention is, the card that has been returnedwas not the ID badge, it was the magnetic card that opens all thedoor of the institute. It was our responsibility to return it at the endof every working day, as it belongs to the hired venue and it wouldrepresent a safeguarding issue. The ID badge is still with me. If, asthe respondent claimed, the magnetic card was thrown with somenoise on the table, it is because additional keys were attached to it.As this action was considered as a resignation from my side, Iwould like it to be reconsidered, even though we are out of the timeframe.7. The grounds for reconsideration are only those set out in Rule 70, namelythat it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.8. The ground relied upon by the Claimant is that she disputes that it was herID badge that she returned to the Respondent, but says it was a keycardwhich would have been returned to the Respondent in any event.9. The matters raised by the Claimant were considered in the light of all ofthe evidence presented to the Tribunal before it reached its decision.10. Rule 70 of the Rules provides a single ground for reconsideration, beingthe interests of justice. This replaced the previous test, which gave fivegrounds for reconsideration; one of these was that new evidence hadbecome available since the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing to which thedecision related, the existence of which could not have been reasonablyknown of or foreseen at that time. However, it is clear that, followingOutasight VB Ltd v Brown [2015] ICR D11 EAT that the interests of justicetest can be viewed through that lens. The EAT confirmed in that case thatthe test set out by the Court of Appeal in Ladd v Marshall 1954 3 All ER745, CA.11. In that case, the Court of Appeal established that, in order to justify thereception of new evidence, it is necessary to show three separate matters that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonablediligence for use at the original hearing, that the evidence is relevant andwould probably have had an important influence on the hearing and,finally, that the evidence is apparently credible.Case No: 3300866/202210.7 Judgment with reasons rule 6212. Applying the Ladd v Marshall test, I have reviewed the notes of thehearing and the card in question was referred to as the Claimants ID cardthroughout the hearing. The Claimant had opportunity to dispute this, orput forward any argument that it was a key card, not her ID card, duringthe hearing, but did not do so.13. In any event, the Claimant returning this card was just one factor in theTribunals decision. The fact of it being a key card as opposed to her IDcard would not have altered the Tribunals decision.14. Accordingly, I do not find that the determination in this case should bereconsidered by virtue of the purported new evidence or argument as thisdoes not pass the tests in Ladd v Marshall. I do not consider that it is inthe interests of justice to allow the Claimant a second attempt to presenther case because she did not bring to the Tribunals attention evidenceand argument that was available in support of her case at the originalhearing. Furthermore, there are important public policy reasons for the ruleof finality in litigation. Importantly, reconsideration is not an opportunity toimprove upon original submissions and/or to expand upon the same oncethe case has concluded. Nor is it an opportunity to continue to press theextent to which a Claimant feels that they have been treated unfairly by aRespondent.15. The earlier case law suggests that the interests of justice ground shouldbe construed restrictively. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) inTrimble v Supertravel Ltd [1982] ICR 440 decided that if a matter has beenventilated and argued then any error of law falls to be corrected on appealand not by review. In addition, in Fforde v Black EAT 68/80 (where theapplicant was seeking a review in the interests of justice under the formerRules which is analogous to a reconsideration under the current Rules)the EAT decided that the interests of justice ground of review does notmean that in every case where a litigant is unsuccessful, he isautomatically entitled to have the Tribunal review it. Every unsuccessfullitigant thinks that the interests of justice require a review. This ground ofreview only applies in the even more exceptional case where somethinghas gone radically wrong with the procedure involving a denial of naturaljustice or something of that order.16. More recent case law suggests that the "interests of justice" ground shouldnot be construed as restrictively as it was prior to the introduction of the"overriding objective" (which is now set out in Rule 2). This requires theTribunal to give effect to the overriding objective to deal with cases fairlyand justly. As confirmed in Williams v Ferrosan Ltd [2004] IRLR 607 EAT,it is no longer the case that the "interests of justice" ground was onlyappropriate in exceptional circumstances. However, in Newcastle UponTyne City Council v Marsden [2010] IRLR 743, the EAT confirmed that it isincorrect to assert that the interests of justice ground need not necessarilybe construed so restrictively, since the overriding objective to deal withcases justly required the application of recognised principles. Theseinclude that there should be finality in litigation, which is in the interest ofboth pa

View the original news story