Cases2303980/2019

Claimant v Boys and Maughan Solicitors

9 June 2025Before Employment Judge L BurgeLondon Southon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Facts

The claimant had been subject to an unless order requiring him to provide a witness statement by 21 May 2021. On that date, he applied to set aside or vary the unless order. A preliminary hearing on 9 March 2022 considered whether to vary or set aside the unless order and whether to grant relief from sanction. The claimant applied for reconsideration on 5 April 2022, arguing the tribunal should have applied Rule 29 rather than Rule 38/70.

Decision

The tribunal refused the reconsideration application under Rule 72(1), finding no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judge held that applying Enamejewa, the correct approach was Rule 38, but in any event it was immaterial as the test was effectively the same. The application was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate matters already determined.

Practical note

Reconsideration applications cannot be used to reargue procedural points on different legal grounds where the substantive test applied was effectively identical, and finality in litigation must be respected.

Legal authorities cited

Enamejewa v British Gas Trading Ltd and Centrica PLC EAT 0347/14Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16

Statutes

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Rule 70Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Rule 72(1)Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Rule 29Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Rule 38Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Rule 2

Case details

Case number
2303980/2019
Decision date
9 June 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
legal services
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No