Claimant v Mishcon de Reya LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the whistleblowing claims because the territorial reach of the Employment Rights Act 1996 Parts IV, V and X did not extend to the Claimant's employment by the Respondent, as he was working in the Singapore office. The reconsideration application was refused as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
The claimant was a partner working in Mishcon de Reya's Singapore office. He brought whistleblowing claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996. At a preliminary hearing on 23 July 2025, the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the territorial reach of the Act did not extend to his employment in Singapore. The claimant applied for reconsideration on five grounds, all challenging factual findings and the tribunal's reasoning.
Decision
Employment Judge Snelson refused the reconsideration application under rule 70(2) of the 2024 Rules, finding no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. The judge rejected all five grounds, finding they either misunderstood the original judgment, raised irrelevant points, or simply sought to re-argue the preliminary hearing. The judge confirmed that if the decision was wrong in law, the proper remedy was an appeal to the EAT.
Practical note
Reconsideration applications must show more than disagreement with a tribunal's decision; they cannot be used to re-argue a case, and arguments about peripheral factual details that do not materially affect the legal analysis will fail.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6019340/2024
- Decision date
- 26 August 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Partner
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No