Ms A Male v Milewood Healthcare Limited — 2019

The claimant's original claim was presented on 23 December 2013 and pleaded unfair dismissal, failure to pay notice pay, holiday pay and unlawful deductions. It was dismissed on 24 July 2014 because no hearing fee or remission application had been made under the then-fees regime. After the Supreme Court's decision in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor, the claimant applied on 14 September 2017 for reconsideration and for an extension of time under rule 5.

The tribunal reviewed the earlier procedural history, including the reinstatement order of 19 September 2014, the extension of the fee deadline to 3 October 2014, the refusal of a further extension, and the later destruction of the tribunal file. It accepted that Mr Broomhead had suffered a diabetic stroke in late September 2017, but noted that there was no recorded contact from late 2017 until November 2018 and no proof that copy documents had been posted or received. It found that the claimant had not actively pursued the matter during that period.

Applying the rule 70 interests of justice test and the overriding objective, the tribunal rejected the respondent's submission that the EAT appeal had exhausted its jurisdiction, referring to Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods as recognising reconsideration as an exception. It accepted that delay and some prejudice existed, but found that a fair hearing remained possible because the hearing bundle and witness statements had been prepared in 2014. Overall, it decided that it was in the interests of justice to revoke the 2014 dismissal and reinstate the claim for further case management and a final hearing. The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying complaints.