Case 4105346/2017 · Employment Tribunal
A Kemp (sitting alone) Mr Lee Cox v Bluebird Buses Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4105346/2017
- Decision date
- 11 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Kemp (sitting alone) Mr Lee Cox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's further application for reconsideration of the tribunal's earlier judgment dismissing his unfair dismissal claim was refused by Employment Judge A Kemp sitting alone on 10 January 2019. The judgment records that the original unfair dismissal claim had been heard on 30 and 31 July 2018 and dismissed in the judgment issued on 8 August 2018, and that a first reconsideration application had already been refused on 8 October 2018.
The tribunal held that the new application was brought well outside the 14-day period in Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Rules 2013, which was sufficient reason to refuse reconsideration. It also held that the application was unfounded on the merits because the fairness of a dismissal is judged by the circumstances at the time of dismissal, so later events could not affect that issue. The claimant's request to lead further evidence about another employee and to view CCTV footage was therefore not a basis for reopening the earlier decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for reconsideration of the tribunal's earlier unfair dismissal judgment; refused as out of time and because the proposed further evidence could not affect the fairness assessment at the time of dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 70 interests of justice
- Rule 71 14-day limit
- overriding objective
- Serco Ltd v Wells [2016] ICR 768
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.