Claimant v The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a reconsideration hearing of a preliminary issue judgment on whether the claimant was disabled. The claimant did not attend and his application for reconsideration was refused. The tribunal found all five grounds of reconsideration lacked reasonable prospects: Ground 1 challenged legal interpretation (suitable for EAT appeal), Ground 4 challenged primary findings of fact, Ground 3 relied on post-relevant period evidence, Ground 2 was unsupported by the evidence given at the original hearing, and Ground 5 concerned theoretical disadvantage with no application to adduce additional evidence made despite six weeks' notice. The tribunal held there was no procedural mishap and the interests of justice favoured finality in litigation.
Facts
The claimant applied to reconsider a judgment dated 14 April 2024 on a preliminary issue concerning whether he was disabled due to asthma. The reconsideration hearing was listed for 2 August 2024 by video. The claimant did not attend, emailing the day before citing exhaustion throughout July, breathing difficulties due to humid weather, and inability to prepare evidence. He has asthma and had given evidence at the original preliminary hearing in March 2024 that his asthma worsened in August 2023 but temporary damage was reversed by treatment. The claimant raised five grounds of reconsideration.
Decision
Employment Judge George refused the claimant's reconsideration application and proceeded in his absence. The judge found no exceptional circumstances to postpone: the claimant provided no medical evidence he could not attend a video hearing, had six weeks since notice of hearing to obtain evidence but made no application to adduce it, and gave insufficient explanation for lack of preparedness. On the merits, all five grounds failed: Grounds 1, 3 and 4 were challenges to law or fact suitable for appeal not reconsideration; Ground 2 was not supported by the evidence; Ground 5 concerned theoretical disadvantage without any application for additional evidence. The interests of justice favoured finality in litigation.
Practical note
Reconsideration applications must identify procedural mishaps or new evidence, not re-argue findings of fact or law, and applicants must explain with supporting evidence what additional material they seek to rely upon and why it was unavailable at the original hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3314431/2022
- Decision date
- 14 April 2024
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No