Mrs Sally England v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty — 2024

The reserved judgment referenced in this reconsideration decision had dismissed all six of the claimant's substantive claims unanimously: unfair constructive dismissal by reason of public interest disclosure, detriment on the ground of public interest disclosure, unpaid holiday pay, unfair constructive dismissal by reason of health and safety, detriment on the ground of health and safety, and breach of contract. The present judgment concerns the claimant's 30 July 2024 application for reconsideration of that decision, which was refused.

The tribunal held that the reconsideration application was made within the Rule 71 time limit and had been copied to the respondent's solicitors, so it had jurisdiction to consider it. The tribunal then said the application did not identify any new matters and was, in substance, an attempt to challenge factual findings and conclusions already reached at the hearing. It referred to Rule 70 and the need for finality in litigation, citing Outasight v VB Brown 2015 ICR D 11 and Liddington v 2gether NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0002/16/DA.

The tribunal dealt with the claimant's procedural complaints and rejected them. It said the two witness statement changes were minor corrections about attendance at a meeting and a wrongly stated year, that the claimant had not requested breaks during cross-examination and had been given sufficient natural breaks, that the respondent's counsel's remark that the claimant was "not a stupid woman" was not treated as sexist or derogatory in context, and that the tribunal could not police every word of cross-examination. It also said there had been no prior order allowing audio to be played, the recordings had been made without consent, and the tribunal had decided not to admit them after hearing representations.

On the factual complaints, the tribunal said the claimant had not shown any misapprehension in the original findings. It found the application did not identify a specific grievance issue, accepted the respondent's witnesses on the relevant evidence about lone working, risk assessments, phone signal and the absence of a near miss finding, and said the claimant had produced no documentary evidence supporting her wage claim. The tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked and refused reconsideration under Rule 72(1).