Mr Harris, Lay representative For the v Respondent — 2019

This judgment concerned the claimant’s application for reconsideration of a reserved judgment dated 16 November 2017. Employment Judge Ord held that, apart from one correction to paragraph 27, the application for reconsideration failed and the original judgment was confirmed. The only amendment made was to replace paragraph 27 with wording recording that evidence was heard from Ms Helen Cara, personal assistant to Mr Harris, and that she attended a grievance meeting with the claimant on 5 October 2015.

The tribunal set out the reconsideration framework under Rules 70 to 72 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and reviewed the procedural history of the application. It recorded that the claimant’s written application made extensive criticisms of the respondent’s treatment of her, of the conduct of the proceedings, and of the tribunal’s original decision, but the judge stated that reconsideration was not an opportunity to reopen issues already determined.

One argument advanced at the reconsideration hearing was that the respondent had breached an unless order by serving witness statements later than 12 noon on 7 November 2016. The tribunal found that no complaint about this had been made before or at the final hearing, so rule 38 had not been engaged at the time. The judge also stated that, had the issue been raised, an application for relief would almost certainly have been granted because the default was only a matter of hours, the statements were subsequently served, no prejudice had been identified, and the case involved substantial allegations of detriment for making protected disclosures and constructive unfair dismissal which should be heard on their merits.

The tribunal identified the claimant’s fundamental complaint on reconsideration as being that the respondent had no good reason to place her in a capability process and that her complaint should therefore succeed. Judge Ord held that this issue had already been fully dealt with in the original hearing, referring to paragraphs 95 to 103 of the original judgment, and that the tribunal had already made findings on that reasoning. On that basis, there was no interests-of-justice basis to reopen the merits. The original judgment therefore remained in force, subject only to the correction to paragraph 27.