S Qasim v Mercedes-Benz Retail Group UK Limited — 2021

At a case management hearing on 9 August 2021, Employment Judge Housego made a deposit order against the Respondent. The written order was sent to the parties on 8 October 2021, and an application for reconsideration was then made on 20 October 2021. The application argued that the hearing had been affected by the absence of the solicitor with conduct of the case, that the judge had not had copies of the pleadings, and that later disclosure showed reasons for distinguishing between the Claimant and a comparator.

The tribunal referred to the reconsideration provisions in Rules 70 to 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, but said it was not satisfied that a deposit order was a judgment to which those rules applied. It therefore reviewed the matter under rule 29 as a possible case management order to be set aside in the interests of justice. The judge rejected the points raised by the Respondent, holding that the representative's lack of full instructions was not enough by itself, that the initial confusion over who was representing whom was not material, and that any comparator-based arguments could and should have been raised at the case management hearing.

The tribunal concluded that there was no injustice in the making of the deposit order. It said the Respondent could defend the claim fully, that the tribunal hearing the case would not see the deposit order itself, and that the practical effect of the order was only to leave the Respondent at risk of a costs order if it lost on the basis identified in the original order. The application for reconsideration was therefore refused because there was no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked.