EAT PRACTICE AND ROCEDURE :
REVIEW/ RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGMENTS
Following a judgment in his favour the claimant, through his representatives, sought reconsideration on the basis that the compensatory element of the award made to him should have been ‘ grossed up’ to take account of the incidence of tax. The reconsideration application was out of time and was opposed by the respondent, both in relation to lateness and in substance. Subsequent to receipt of the respondent’s opposition the Tribunal decided to effect reconsideration ‘ of its own initiative’ and purported to gross up the award. The respondent appealed.
Rules 70 – 73 of the Employment Tribunal Rules provide alternative routes to reconsideration. Where an application has been made by a party for such reconsideration, that must be dealt with by the Tribunal. There is no scope for a hybrid process where an application is commenced by a party but is then taken on by the Tribunal of its own initiative, at least where there is a single subject matter for potential reconsideration. The course adopted by the Tribunal was procedurally and substantively unfair. It should have addressed the issue of lateness, and whether to extend time, as a first consideration and thereafter deal with the substance of the reconsideration application only if time was extended. In any event, the purported reconsideration judgment had ignored the respondent’s opposition, was accordingly not balanced and could not withstand scrutiny.
Appeal allowed and case remitted to a fresh Tribunal to consider the out of time reconsideration application.
Judges:
Wise L
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0016 – 16 – 1904, [2017] WLR(D) 488
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.590412