Mr L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Limited RECONSIDERATION — 2025

The claimant applied on 17 March 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 13 March 2025. The tribunal refused the application because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, and it said it was not apparent from the application that the claimant had complied with Rule 90.

The claimant relied on newly obtained evidence from Mr Ahmad, but the tribunal found there was no explanation for why that evidence could not have been provided before the hearing in accordance with the Order for Directions. It noted that the claimant knew the respondent was not calling Mr Ahmad as a witness, and that he could have approached Mr Ahmad before the hearing in the same way as he did afterwards.

The tribunal also said the claimant's disagreement with its conclusion and its interpretation of the EAT authority did not justify reconsideration. It held that matters which post-dated the conversation on 23 April 2024 were not material to whether the tribunal's decision was improper, and that reconsideration was not the right route to revisit the case management order because that order itself provided the mechanism for any application to vary it.