Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Background:
The claimant brought a series of claims relating to disability discrimination and largely relating to his contract of employment stating that the hours of work may vary depending on the needs of the business. A series of issues arose including the claimant driving with one shoe off at a point. The Tribunal hearing those claims dismissed them – many of them for being out of time – and others due to not having sufficient substance or evidence in relation to disability discrimination.
The claimant then brought an application for a reconsideration by the Tribunal of the decision to dismiss. From a procedural perspective, the Tribunal Judge who originally made the decision was not available and so, in accordance with the procedure, another Judge was appointed by the President.
Outcome:
The basis for a reconsideration was within Rule 64 which states that a party may make an application where it is ‘necessary in the interests of justice to do so.’ The Tribunal recognised that reconsideration is an exception to the general principle that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal is final. Indeed, in Ministry of Justice v Burton [2016] it was held that the importance of finality mitigates against discretion being exercised too readily when it comes to the interests of justice. As a result, the failure to draw an argument to the Tribunal will not normally be sufficient. Additionally, it is not a mechanism by which matters can be relitigated.
The Tribunal considered the points made by the claimant relating to his application for reconsideration. It was found that, in the most part, they were those which were made originally. It was held that there is a clear public policy interest in ensuring the finality of litigation. As a result, the power of reconsideration will only be used sparingly and where it is required in the interests of justice. General dissatisfaction with the original result will not be sufficient.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
This case provides a useful insight into how the Industrial Tribunal in Northern Ireland considers the use of reconsideration. It is made very clear that it is to be used sparingly and not as a method to relitigate matters or where a party is unhappy with the original decision. This ought to be taken into account by those who are deciding whether to make an application for reconsideration – namely it is whether it is in the interests of justice – which gives great weight to ensuring that there is finality in the decision making process.
NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/
Jason also covered the original Tribunal decision and his Review can be found here:
https://www.legal-island.com/articles/uk/case-law/2024/october/lucas-v-eurocoach-ni-limited-2024/
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
