Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not made protected disclosures. The reconsideration application sought to reopen this determination but was refused as it constituted an attempt to relitigate matters already considered and determined at the full merits hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a contractual entitlement to make a deduction from the claimant's wages as referenced in paragraph 102 of the original judgment. The claimant's challenge to this finding in her reconsideration application was rejected.
Facts
This is a reconsideration application brought by the claimant following a full merits hearing held on 27 November 2024. The original judgment dated 8 January 2025 dismissed the claimant's whistleblowing and unlawful deduction of wages claims. The claimant had less than 2 years' continuity of employment. She applied for reconsideration on 26 January 2025, submitting a 36-page application seeking to reopen numerous issues including alleged protected disclosures, document authenticity, and alleging serious misconduct by the respondent.
Decision
Employment Judge Nicolle refused the reconsideration application. The judge found no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked, concluding that the claimant was essentially seeking to relitigate matters already determined at the full merits hearing. The application was initially out of time but the judge exercised discretion to extend time to consider it on its merits before refusing it.
Practical note
Reconsideration applications must identify errors in the original judgment with reasonable prospects of success, not merely rehearse arguments already considered or attempt to introduce evidence that was available at the original hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2212689/2023
- Decision date
- 8 January 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Roxdent Ltd
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No