C Lucas (Sitting Alone) Ms Veera Paterson v Represented by: Mr G F Bathgate Solicitor Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd — 2019

This judgment was issued on reconsideration of the tribunal’s original liability decision of 21 May 2018, following an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision dated 15 March 2019. The tribunal noted that the EAT had remitted matters back for reconsideration of remedy and for consideration of the submission in part 7.2 of the Notice of Appeal. The Employment Judge explained that he had not been aware of any appeal or any application for reconsideration when the original decision was issued, and the parties accepted that explanation at the preliminary hearing on 13 May 2019.

The judge recorded that, at the time of the original decision, he had perceived a tension between rule 76(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and section 114 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and he referred to Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust v Dr V Laakkonen and others. He then concluded that, applying rule 70 and the overriding objective in rule 2, and having regard to the EAT’s decision and the parties’ position, it was necessary in the interests of justice to vary the original wording. The claimant did not intend at the remedy hearing to seek reimbursement of any fees paid to her solicitors or representative.

The only substantive change made was to delete the reference to those solicitors’ or representative fees from paragraph (Third) of the original order. As varied, the order remained that the respondent reimburse the claimant for expenses reasonably incurred as a result of being unfairly dismissed on 2 September 2017, including additional travel costs incurred in attending her present place of work, with the amount to be agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, determined at a further hearing. Except for that variation, the original decision was confirmed.