Claimant v MOL Tankship Management Pte. Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant's application for interim relief was refused because the tribunal concluded that the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of showing that his disclosures about the SEEMP report tended to show that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or that he had a reasonable belief that his disclosure did so. The reconsideration application was refused as the claimant had not demonstrated it was necessary in the interests of justice.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of proving that his disclosure was a qualifying protected disclosure under s.129(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that the SEEMP report was an internal report only, and was not persuaded the claimant had reasonable belief his disclosure tended to show environmental damage.
Facts
The claimant, Mr Zoric, applied for reconsideration of a judgment refusing his application for interim relief in a whistleblowing dismissal claim. The claimant alleged he made protected disclosures concerning the respondent maritime shipping companies' non-compliance with Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) reporting obligations, which he claimed were mandatory international legal requirements. The original interim relief hearing found that the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of showing his disclosures tended to show environmental damage. The claimant submitted an 11-page reconsideration application raising five grounds including procedural mismanagement, failure to consider relevant evidence, misapprehension of the regulatory framework, overlooked detrimental treatment, and additional employment aspects.
Decision
Employment Judge Overton refused the reconsideration application, finding no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked. The judge concluded that the claimant had not demonstrated it was necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider. The judge found that the claimant's grounds either did not impact upon the original decision on interim relief, sought to re-open matters already considered at the original hearing, or amounted to disagreement with the decision rather than grounds for reconsideration. The original judgment refusing interim relief was confirmed.
Practical note
Reconsideration applications cannot succeed merely because a party disagrees with the judgment; there must be demonstrable grounds showing it is necessary in the interests of justice, and finality in litigation includes interim relief decisions.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6009229/2025
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No