Cases1405571/2023

Claimant v Lidl Great Britain Limited

21 November 2024Before Employment Judge Rayneron papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the claimant was not constructively and unfairly dismissed. The original judgment applied Omilaju v Waltham Forest and made findings that the respondent's conduct did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal specifically considered the suspension and found no evidence it was a knee-jerk reaction. The reconsideration application simply sought to re-argue the same evidence and grounds already considered at the full merits hearing.

Facts

The claimant resigned from his employment with Lidl and claimed constructive dismissal. He was suspended during a disciplinary investigation and raised various concerns about the investigation process, treatment compared to others, alleged privacy violations, and health and safety matters. The original tribunal heard full evidence from both parties including cross-examination and found the claimant was not constructively dismissed. The claimant applied for reconsideration within 14 days of the original judgment dated 5 December 2024.

Decision

The judge refused the reconsideration application on the basis there was no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the original decision. All matters raised by the claimant in his reconsideration application were either considered at the original hearing or could have been raised through witness evidence, cross-examination or submissions. The application amounted to an attempt to re-argue the same case rather than identifying new evidence or error of law.

Practical note

A reconsideration application must identify grounds beyond mere disagreement with the tribunal's findings — a party cannot use reconsideration to re-argue evidence that was or could have been presented at the original hearing.

Legal authorities cited

Stevenson v Golden Wonder Ltd [1977] IRLR 474Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2005] ICR 481Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council [2000]Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395Outasight VB v Brown [2015] ICR D11Ministry of Justice v Burton [2016] ICR 1128Newcastle upon Tyne City Council v Marsden [2010] ICR 743Lindsay v Ironsides Ray & Vials [1994] ICR 384

Statutes

Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8

Case details

Case number
1405571/2023
Decision date
21 November 2024
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes

Claimant representation

Represented
No