Mr J. Reilly v Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Limited and 2 others — 2024

This was a paper hearing on the Claimant’s application dated 30 September 2024 for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s 29 August 2024 judgment. The Employment Judge, sitting alone, said a face-to-face hearing was not necessary because the issues could be determined on the papers. The Tribunal reviewed the application, the Claimant’s further email and documents of 8 October 2024, the existing file, the original judgment, and the relevant rules and authorities.

The Tribunal set out the reconsideration framework under Rules 70 to 72 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and referred to Outasight VB Ltd v Brown, Ladd v Marshall, and Ebury Partners UK Ltd v Mr M Acton Davis. It emphasised the public interest in finality in litigation and said reconsideration is only justified where strictly necessary in the interests of justice, not simply because a party wishes to advance a different argument or reach a different conclusion.

Applying that approach, the Tribunal found that almost all of the further material relied on by the Claimant could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the original hearing. The Tribunal said the few items that were genuinely new, including links to the HSE website, would not have had an important influence on the result because the key issue in the case was the contractual relationship between the parties. It rejected the submission that the Respondents had restricted the bundle to compromise the Claimant’s case and found that the material advanced would not have changed the outcome in any event.

The Tribunal also addressed the Claimant’s specific criticisms of passages in the original judgment, including points about the nature of his engagement, IR35, the PSC and CIS arrangements, and the treatment of his tax return. It held that these were either already dealt with in the original reasons or amounted to disagreement with findings already made. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and refused the reconsideration application under Rule 72(1).