Thomas Young
Jonathan Graham

Arralis Technologies Ltd
ReliaSat Ltd

Application for reconsideration refused when the respondent did not issue an appearance and sought to reopen the case when judgment had been issued.

The claimants brought claims against the respondents and received judgment.  Neither of the respondents entered a response or were represented at the oral hearing. Mr Greaves, from the respondent, communicated with the Tribunal and stated that he would not answer or respond to any further communications. Following the judgment, Mr Greaves purporting to communicate on behalf of the second respondent wrote to the Tribunal.   He sought reconsideration on the basis that there was no case to answer as he had stated and that there was nothing to give him the impression that he had to fly to Belfast to attend the hearing.  A second argument was that the legal interpretation of TUPE was wrong.

The Tribunal stated that the correspondence post-judgment was an attempt to reopen matters when faced with a judgment which Mr Greaves took issue with. The Tribunal noted that the power to order reconsideration is to be used sparingly and only where it is required in the interests of justice.  It is not to be used where one party is dissatisfied with the result. Further, the second named respondent failed to enter an appearance and under the statutory provisions within Rules 66 and 67 it was held that Mr Greaves had no locus standi. Accordingly, the application for reconsideration was rejected and dismissed.

This case demonstrates the reluctance of the Tribunal to widen the parameters for reconsideration of a decision. Moreover, it goes further in demonstrating that where there has been no appearance entered by a party then there would be no locus standi to make an application for reconsideration. It would have to be in the interests of justice and that test was not satisfied here.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
https://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/