Mr James Lascelles v King Edward VI Education Trust — 2026

The tribunal refused Mr James Lascelles’s application for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 31 May 2026, which dismissed his unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims against King Edward VI Education Trust. The tribunal found that the application was made within the relevant time limit, but that there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.

The tribunal applied Rules 68 to 70 and the guidance in Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust. Reconsideration must be necessary in the interests of justice. It does not provide an opportunity to reargue matters already considered or introduce previously available evidence with a different emphasis. The judge stressed the need for finality in litigation and stated that an asserted error of law should be addressed through an appeal.

The claimant questioned the legal advice he had received and said the tribunal had failed to hear evidence from David Subden about the harm test, the risk of harm and his authority to provide employment law advice under the Legal Services Act 2007. The judge said that concerns about the advice were matters for the claimant to take up with his representative. The claimant had been legally represented throughout, and Mr Subden was his witness; the judge said it was for Mr Subden to choose the matters on which he gave evidence.

The judge remained satisfied that the law had been applied correctly, that the relevant permitted reason for dismissal had been identified, and that the respondent’s procedure was reasonable and within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant had identified no procedural mishap affecting the fairness of the proceedings and no error of law. The judge found that he was seeking to reargue his position after having had a full opportunity at the previous hearing. This judgment records no monetary award.