Case 1400952/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Scully v AND Digital Communication Systems Limited — 2018

Case reference: 1400952/2018
Decision date: 27 December 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Scully

Respondent

AND Digital Communication Systems Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal sat in chambers at Plymouth on 9 January 2019 to determine the respondent's application for reconsideration of the reserved judgment dated 12 December 2018, which had been sent to the parties on 27 December 2018. The application was found to be within the 14-day time limit in Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

Employment Judge N J Roper held that the matters advanced by the respondent simply revisited findings of fact and legal submissions that had already been considered on the evidence before the tribunal. The judgment applied Rule 70's interests of justice test together with the overriding objective and the need for finality in litigation, citing Trimble v Supertravel Ltd, Fforde v Black, Williams v Ferrosan Ltd, and Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council v Marsden. Reconsideration was refused under Rule 72(1) because there was no reasonable prospect of the earlier decision being varied or revoked. This judgment did not alter the underlying reserved decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Respondent's application for reconsideration of the reserved judgment dated 12 December 2018 was refused under Rule 72(1); the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.