Ms S v E Limited — 2023

The claimant applied on 8 March 2023 for reconsideration of the judgment sent on 23 February 2023. The application was refused under Rules 70 and 71 because the judge found there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and that reconsideration was not in the interests of justice.

The claimant's main point was that photographs relied on during the hearing were fabricated. The judge rejected that argument, finding that the e-mail sent during the hearing showed the camera roll on the photograph whether viewed on a computer or another device, so the point was not new evidence. The judge also said the absence of one photograph from the camera roll did not prove fabrication, because there could be other explanations, and that both photographs showed the same location with only slight movement consistent with a brief time lapse.

The judge further noted that, even if the disputed two photographs were ignored, there was a third photograph taken by another individual within two minutes of them. On that basis, the judge concluded that the liability findings in the original judgment would not change even if the claimant succeeded on her challenge to the photographs.

The reconsideration reasons record that the original tribunal had found the automatically unfair dismissal claim and the detriment claim failed because the claimant had not made protected disclosures. The judge also referred to the remaining ordinary unfair dismissal claim and said its conclusions would not be affected by the disputed photographs. The reasons also mention Chesterton Global Limited v Nurmohamed and Mulwandad v Shiloz Services, with the latter described as a first instance case that was not binding and involved different facts.