Claimant v Clipfine Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
All claims were dismissed by the Tribunal at the full hearing on 4 February 2025. The reconsideration application was refused as the claimant sought to re-argue issues already fully litigated and expand his claim with allegations of further protected disclosures, which was not permitted.
The breach of contract claim was dismissed at the original hearing. The claimant later attempted to submit Uber receipts as new evidence but failed to explain why this could not have been obtained before the hearing, so it did not meet the Ladd v Marshall principles for admitting fresh evidence.
Facts
This is a reconsideration judgment. The claimant's whistleblowing and breach of contract claims were dismissed at a full hearing on 4 February 2025, with costs of £5,000 awarded against him. The claimant applied for reconsideration on 17 February 2025, seeking to re-argue his case and introduce new evidence (Uber receipts) which he obtained after the hearing.
Decision
The reconsideration application was refused. The Judge found no reasonable prospect of varying the original decision. The claimant was attempting to re-argue issues already fully litigated and expand his claim with new allegations, which offended the principle of finality. The new Uber receipt evidence was rejected as it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the hearing.
Practical note
Reconsideration applications cannot be used to re-argue cases or introduce new claims and evidence that could have been presented at the original hearing, as this would undermine finality of litigation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2217111/2023
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Clipfine Limited
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No