Case 3200021/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lewis v London Fire Commissioner UPON APPLICATION made by email dated 15 October 2020 to reconsider the — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200021/2020
- Decision date
- 2 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lewis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an application by the Claimant, Mr A Lewis, dated 15 October 2020, seeking reconsideration under rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 of the Deposit Order sent to the parties on 2 October 2020. Employment Judge Russell dealt with the application without a hearing and refused it.
The tribunal held that reconsideration was not necessary in the interests of justice. It said the grounds of the application expanded upon points that had been made, or could have been made, at the hearing where the Deposit Order was made, and that the Claimant's disagreement with the assessment of the merits of the claims subject to that order was not enough to justify reconsideration.
The judgment also recorded that finality in litigation was an important principle and that reconsideration is not an opportunity for a "second bite of the cherry". The tribunal found that none of the matters raised by the Claimant gave any reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, so the application was refused under rules 70 and 72.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application under rule 71 for reconsideration of the deposit order dated 2 October 2020 was refused without a hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 71 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rules 70 and 72 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
- reasonable prospect of original decision being varied or revoked
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.