Claimant v Michael Van Clarke LLP

The original judgment dismissed this claim. The reconsideration application was refused because there was no reasonable prospect of varying the original decision, and the claimant essentially sought to reargue the case without identifying any proper basis for reconsideration.

The original judgment dismissed this claim. The reconsideration was refused as the claimant did not identify any error of law or procedural irregularity, but merely sought a second opportunity to present arguments already heard and determined.

The original judgment dismissed this claim. The tribunal noted that the claimant confirmed during the hearing that late night communications referred only to messages from Luis Ventura on 25 August 2023. The reconsideration application did not establish grounds to vary the decision.

The original judgment dismissed this claim. The claimant sought to reargue the victimisation claim in the reconsideration application without identifying any basis for reconsidering it. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of varying the decision.

The original judgment dismissed this claim. The reconsideration application did not provide grounds to disturb the original finding, and the claimant's employment status determination (which affected all claims) was upheld.

The original judgment dismissed this claim. The reconsideration was refused as the claimant failed to establish any error or oversight that would warrant revisiting the decision.

The original judgment dismissed this claim. The tribunal found no basis in the reconsideration application to vary the original decision, particularly given the determination regarding the claimant's worker status.

The original judgment dismissed this claim. The reconsideration application was refused because the claimant did not identify any proper grounds for reconsideration beyond seeking to reargue matters already fully ventilated at the original hearing.