Case 1810232/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S A Barker v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1810232/2018
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S A Barker
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Brain considered the claimant's email application for reconsideration, sent on 27 August 2019, against the judgment promulgated on 15 August 2019. The judge applied Rule 70 and asked whether there were reasonable prospects of the judgment being varied or revoked in the interests of justice.
The tribunal held that the claimant's 11-page application was discursive and did not identify any procedural mishap affecting fairness or any error of law. It also noted that the claimant had sought to introduce new evidence and had attempted to challenge the judgment by a detailed criticism of findings of fact, which was not the function of reconsideration.
The judge said that the original judgment had correctly identified the relevant permitted reason for dismissal, namely redundancy arising from reorganisation, and had found that the respondent's procedure was reasonable and within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. On that basis, the tribunal found there were no reasonable prospects of the judgment being varied or revoked and dismissed the reconsideration application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This was a reconsideration judgment only. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to vary or revoke the judgment promulgated on 15 August 2019 and recorded that the original judgment had found the dismissal to be a fair redundancy dismissal following reorganisation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 70
- reasonable prospects
- interests of justice
- Rule 73
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.