1. Miss S Cole 2. Miss C Hudson 3. Miss E Poole v Meadowbrook Surgery — 2025

The tribunal considered the first claimant's application for reconsideration of the judgment sent on 6 December 2024 and refused it. The original judgment had dismissed her unfair dismissal complaint because it was not presented within the statutory time limit, even though it was found to have been reasonably practicable to do so.

In the reconsideration application dated 19 December 2024, the first claimant said she had "skimmed through" the relevant documents and made a mistake about when the time limit expired. She later said that migraine medication had affected her eyesight, concentration and caused brain fog. She relied on GP records that were before the tribunal at the original hearing and a later GP letter that repeated her assertion about the medication contributing to the missed deadline.

The tribunal found that the application was an attempt to reopen the evidence heard on the facts, change her evidence, or persuade the tribunal to reach a different conclusion on the same evidence. It held that she had identified no procedural shortcoming and no new evidence that she could not have known about at the time of the hearing. On that basis, there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked, and the reconsideration application was refused under rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, or the predecessor rule 72(1) of the 2013 Rules.