Bristol City Council and Mrs A James

Case Summary

The Claimant's application for reconsideration was refused as there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.

The tribunal refused the reconsideration application because the claimant had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.

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

• •Misleading Claims about Dan Berlin’s Qualifications
• •Manual Addition to Code of Conduct Form
• •Constructive Denial of Job Evaluation
• •Tribunal Failed to Recognize Retaliatory Use of Evidence Following Protected Act
• •Tribunal Failed to Scrutinize Misuse of Evidence

Case No:6000618/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant:Mrs M Abuayyash Respondents:Bristol City Council (1) Mrs A James (2) Upon an applicationmade by the Claimant by email, and without a hearing, to reconsider the judgment sent to the parties on 14 May 2025 (the Judgment): JUDGMENT ON RECONSIDERATION The Claimant’s application for reconsideration of the Judgment is refusedbecause there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. REASONS 1) Applications for reconsideration are governed by Rules 68 to 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. 2) Rule 68 provides that a Tribunal may, either on its own initiative or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is “necessary in the interests of justice to do so”. This allows an Employment Tribunal a broad discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a judgment is appropriate in the circumstances. The discretion must be exercised judicially. This means having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the reconsideration but also the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation. 3) The importance of finality was confirmed by the Court of Appeal inMinistry of Justice v. Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714 in July 2016 where Elias LJ said that: “the discretion to act in the interests of justice is not open-ended; it should be exercised in a principled way, and the earlier case law cannot be ignored. In particular, the courts have emphasised the importance of finality (Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395) which militates against the discretion being exercised too readily; and in Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 384 Mummery J held that the failure of a party's representative to draw attention to a particular argument w…