Dr. F Wang v Brunel University London — 2024

At a case management hearing on 11 September 2023, the respondent applied for a deposit order in respect of the claimant's harassment and victimisation claims. The application was refused, written reasons were issued on 2 November 2023, and the respondent then sought reconsideration of the refusal as it related to the harassment claims only. The tribunal held that the reconsideration application had been made within the relevant time limit, but refused it because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.

In reaching that conclusion, the judge referred to Rules 70, 71 and 72 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and to the overriding objective. The judgment relied on Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust for the point that reconsideration is not a means of re-litigating matters, rearguing them in a different way, or obtaining a second bite at the cherry, and said finality in litigation remains an important consideration. The respondent also cited Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam, but the tribunal said a mini-trial of the facts should be avoided when considering strike out or deposit order applications.

The tribunal found that the issues remained disputed facts for the final hearing, including the claimant's direct discrimination and victimisation claims, and that the respondent would need to adduce evidence on those matters. It noted that section 212(1) Equality Act 2010 might play a role, but it would not be appropriate to guide the claimant towards one route or another. The judge concluded that refusing a deposit order in these circumstances was proportionate to the issues in dispute.