Martello Piling Ltd

Case Summary

Employment Judge Wright refused Mr L Tarbuc’s application for reconsideration of the judgment, citing non-compliance with Rule 90 and the submission of evidence that could have been provided earlier.

The Employment Judge refused the application for reconsideration because Mr Tarbuc failed to comply with Rule 90 and submitted evidence that could have been provided earlier in the proceedings.

• •The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused due to non-compliance with Rule 90 and the submission of newly obtained evidence that could have been provided prior to the hearing. The claimant disagrees with the Tribunal’s conclusion but this does not warrant reconsideration. Matters post-dating the conversation on 23/4/2024 are not material to the question of whether the Tribunal's decision was improper. A reconsideration application is not an appropriate method for revisiting the case management Order.

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr L Tarbuc Respondent: Martello Piling Limited RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT The claimant’s application dated 17/3/2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 13/3/2025 is refused. REASONS There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, for the following reasons: 1. It was not apparent from the application that the claimant had complied with Rule 90. 2. The claimant has submitted newly obtained evidence from Mr Ahmad. There is no explanation as to why this evidence could not have been provided prior to the hearing in accordance with the Order for Directions. The claimant knew the respondent was not calling Mr Ahmad as a witness. It was open to the claimant to have approached Mr Ahmad prior to the hearing, in the same way as he did after the hearing. It was also open to the claimant to put the evidence upon which he now relies before the Tribunal. 2 3. The claimant disagrees with the Tribunal’s conclusion and its interpretation of the EAT authority that was before it and he is entitled to take that position. That does not however warrant reconsideration of the Judgment. 4. The claimant seeks to bring into the reconsideration application matters which post-date the conversation on the 23/4/2024. Those matters are not material to the question of whether the Tribunal’s decision was improper. 5. A reconsideration application is not an appropriate method of revisiting the case management Order. The Order itself provide the mechanism for an application to vary the Order. 4/4/2025 Approved by Employment Judge Wright Sent to Parties. 25 April 2025