Andrew Montgomery v Grace Communion International RECONSIDERATION — 2026

The Tribunal refused Andrew Montgomery's application for reconsideration because there was no reasonable prospect of the earlier judgment being varied or revoked. The application alleged procedural irregularity, determination of matters outside the preliminary hearing's scope, and reasons why reconsideration was said to be required in the interests of justice.

The Tribunal found that Montgomery had not been prevented from presenting evidence relevant to whether he was a worker or office-holder. Removal of the time-limit issue from the preliminary hearing, because the pleaded case concerned post-dismissal detriments, did not affect those status issues. The Tribunal also found that the document redactions had previously been addressed procedurally and did not provide a substantive reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the judgment.

The Tribunal rejected the contention that the earlier judgment had determined whether qualifying protected disclosures were made, whether detriments occurred, or whether any detriments were caused by disclosures. It found that evidence had been heard before the status issues were decided, that the Deacon role, governance structure and training had been considered, and that the claimant had been placed on an equal footing despite being represented by his wife, who was not legally trained and was dyslexic. No monetary remedy was awarded or considered in this reconsideration judgment.