Ms M M Ojobowale v G4s Facilities Management (uk) Limited — 2020

The respondent's timeous application under Rule 71 for reconsideration of the decision not to postpone the final hearing listed for 9 and 10 July 2020 was refused. The Tribunal held that reconsideration was not necessary in the interests of justice and that none of the grounds advanced gave any reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.

The respondent had argued that the case was not ready because the issues were not agreed, that there was a second claim which was inextricably linked, that not all documents had been provided, that the time estimate was too short, and that the case was not suitable for a remote hearing. The Claimant opposed postponement on the basis that it would cause further delay and harm to her mental health, said any second claim was factually discrete, and submitted that the documents complained about had only recently been requested and that, if the first claim alone were heard, the bundle and witness evidence were short.

In refusing reconsideration, the Tribunal balanced the prejudice to both parties and concluded that the delay caused by postponement outweighed the respondent's prejudice from late disclosure and from hearing the two claims separately. It noted that the dispute about whether the "something" identified by the Claimant arose from disability was a matter for submission, that the medical notes about PTSD were relevant to remedy in a liability-only hearing, and that the Occupational Health referral had only been requested after the postponement application. The Tribunal also recorded that the Claimant said she could participate in a remote hearing by lip reading with support, and ordered the hearing to proceed, with the bundle to be sent electronically by 4 pm on 7 July 2020 and a timetable for evidence to be agreed.