Mr R Botha v Blue Crocodile Money Ltd — 2025

Mr R Botha applied on 21 April 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 7 April 2025. Employment Judge Maidment refused the application on 21 May 2025, holding that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The tribunal said a judgment may be reconsidered only if it is in the interests of justice to do so, and that where new evidence is relied on the tribunal must consider whether it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the original hearing, whether it is relevant and would probably have had an important influence on the hearing, and whether it is apparently credible.

The tribunal had before it a bundle of some 902 pages at the final hearing and the claimant said that unlocking his Apple account had produced a further 130 pages. It said there was no explanation why that material could not have been obtained before the final hearing, was sceptical that the account unlock had produced all the material now relied on, and considered that much of it was not materially relevant. The majority of the additional documents simply showed the claimant active as a mortgage adviser throughout his employment, which was not in dispute and did not directly address the payment arrangements in issue.

The tribunal also reviewed messages said to support the claimant's case, including a message about his wife's bank details, a request for an invoice from his wife in the sum of £3,000, and a reference to commission. It held that those documents did not show that his wife had done work within the business or that the amounts invoiced were sums selected by Mr Blakey because of work he believed she had done. The tribunal said the documents did not show the claimant was seeking a particular sum under an ongoing commission scheme, and concluded that the further material would not bring new clarity to arrangements it described as opaque and irregular between the parties.