Ms C Langtry v Thomas Roofing (NW) Ltd The claimant has made an application dated 20 August 2020 for reconsideration of the — 2020

This was an application for reconsideration of the judgment sent on 6 August 2020. In the original judgment, Employment Judge Horne found that Ms C Langtry had been an employee of Thomas Roofing (NW) Ltd under a contract of employment for at least the period 26 September 2018 to 31 October 2018, but also found that the claim should be struck out because of the claimant’s unreasonable conduct in forging an important document, referred to as the disputed document, and attempting to cover up the forgery.

On reconsideration, the claimant relied on a number of additional materials, including an enhanced version of a video, a memory stick with audio, parts of a Family Court bundle, bank statements, and further written evidence. The tribunal accepted that some Family Court material and a retraction statement were admissible because the claimant could not reasonably have relied on them at the original hearing, but it refused to admit the further bank statements and the claimant’s expanded account of the directors’ meeting because the Ladd v. Marshall criteria were not met.

The tribunal listened to the audio recording three times and concluded that it did not materially assist the claimant’s case: it showed, at most, an indistinct voice after the background music stopped, and it was not possible to identify the speaker or the words said. The tribunal also held that the additional materials did not undermine the original findings on forgery, the assessment of Mr Heath’s evidence, or the conclusion that the disputed document was not genuine.

The tribunal reaffirmed its original reasoning on employment status, including that the claimant was an employee despite the absence of PAYE tax or national insurance deductions for the relevant period. It also maintained that the claimant’s new arguments about earlier work, the transfer of undertaking, working hours, and the parties’ recordings did not provide a basis to vary or revoke the judgment. The application for reconsideration was therefore refused because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.