Claimant v British Airways Pension Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The reconsideration judgment confirms this finding was not challenged and remained in force.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim that the reason or main reason for his dismissal was because he had made protected disclosures (whistleblowing). The claimant challenged this on reconsideration arguing the respondent's communications about his disclosures influenced disciplinary decision-makers, but the tribunal refused reconsideration.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed by the respondent pension services company. He had made protected disclosures involving a BlackRock document and personal data access. The original tribunal found he was unfairly dismissed but rejected his claim that the dismissal was because of his whistleblowing. The tribunal also applied a 100% Polkey reduction, finding he would have been dismissed for redundancy within six weeks anyway. The claimant, who represented himself at the hearing, applied for reconsideration of both findings.
Decision
Employment Judge Anstis refused the reconsideration application under rule 70(2) on the basis there was no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the judgment. The judge held that challenges to the adequacy of reasons should be pursued by appeal not reconsideration, that the Polkey assessment was appropriately conducted on the basis of what would have happened if the employer had acted fairly, and that the claimant had not been denied a fair opportunity to make submissions on Polkey at the original hearing.
Practical note
Reconsideration applications cannot be used as a second opportunity to advance arguments that could have been made at the original hearing or to challenge the adequacy of tribunal reasoning, which is properly a matter for appeal.
Adjustments
The tribunal found the claimant was 100% likely to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy within six weeks if a fair procedure had been followed
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 3303020/2023
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No