United Synagogue

Case Summary

The claimant’s application for reconsideration of the judgment was refused as there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The tribunal concluded that even if the claimant had been dismissed, her unfair dismissal claim would have failed.

The tribunal refused reconsideration of the original judgment because even if dismissal had occurred, the unfair dismissal claim would have failed on its merits.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •reconsideration of judgment
• •claimant's resignation vs dismissal

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss K Watson Respondent: United Synagogue JUDGMENT The claimant’s application dated 18 March 2024 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 21 March 2024 is refused. REASONS There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because: 1. A judgment may only be reconsidered if it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so; 2. There is an underlying public policy principle that there should be finality in litigation; 3. Reconsiderations are not a method by which a disappointed party to proceedings can get a second bite of the cherry; 4. The reconsideration request largely seeks to rehearse the same evidence and/or arguments that were made at the hearing but with different emphasis; 5. In some instances, the reconsideration request seeks to rely on evidence that the claimant did not put before the tribunal at the hearing (and which she could have put before the tribunal); 6. The main thrust of the reconsideration request is to seek to change the tribunal’s decision that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. The tribunal made it clear in its oral reasons that even if it had concluded that the claimant had been dismissed on 11th January 2022 the unfair dismissal claim would have failed in any event. The tribunal concluded that the respondent’s actions on 11 th January 2022 were not done because the claimant had made protected disclosures. _____________________________ Employment Judge Mr A. Spencer 26 March 2024 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 3 April 2024 ........................................................................ ........................................................................ FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE