Cases2310231/2024

Claimant v Domiciliary Care Experts

Outcome

Other

Facts

This is a reconsideration judgment concerning a procedural matter. The respondent had previously been granted an extension of time to submit its response but failed to meet the extended deadline due to an administrative error, missing it by one day. The tribunal had refused a further extension and rejected the response. The respondent applied for reconsideration arguing it was in the interests of justice.

Decision

The tribunal refused the reconsideration application. Employment Judge Sudra held there was no prospect of the original decision being revoked or varied, emphasising the importance of finality in litigation and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate or have a second bite at the cherry.

Practical note

Administrative errors resulting in missing response deadlines will not necessarily justify reconsideration, particularly where an extension has already been granted and the principle of finality in litigation applies.

Legal authorities cited

Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 384Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 r.71Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 r.69

Case details

Case number
2310231/2024
Decision date
30 May 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No