Mr D Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — 2019

The claimant applied on 29 October 2019 for reconsideration of the reserved judgment sent to the parties on 11 October 2019 on the remitted costs application. He said it was necessary in the interests of justice because, in his view, the judgment did not refer to additional evidence sent with emails of 2 and 12 July 2019 after the parties had finished making submissions in June 2019.

Employment Judge Dean refused reconsideration under Rule 72. The reasons state that the claimant had submitted the relevant emails and attachments after the conclusion of submissions, that the reasons for the costs decision had taken account of the evidence and submissions made at the hearing and the additional material sent afterwards, and that the respondent had been given an opportunity to respond. The judge said the claimant was mistaken in saying the additional evidence had not been addressed, referred to specific passages in the reasons where it had been considered, and held there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judgment also records that reconsideration is not a means of reopening issues already determined and that the application was without merit.