Car Sales Solutions Limited v V Riekstins

An Employment Tribunal must address the mandatory stages of an application for reconsideration. It must decide whether the application is in time and, if not, whether time should be extended before refusing it as out of time. The fact that the subject matter is also before the Employment Appeal Tribunal is not, by itself, a reason to refuse reconsideration. Procedural problems are often better investigated by the Employment Tribunal, particularly where evidence and the tribunal file are needed to determine whether a party had a fair and proper opportunity to present its case.

The claimant brought Employment Tribunal complaints concerning unpaid wages and a written statement of employment particulars. The Tribunal found that Car Sales Solutions Limited was his employer and made monetary awards, although the respondents did not attend the hearing.

During EAT proceedings concerning alleged defects in service, respondent identification, correspondence and notice, Car Sales Solutions applied to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. Employment Judge Harris refused the application because it was out of time and, alternatively, because its subject matter was before the EAT. The central issue was whether that refusal was adequately reasoned and whether reconsideration should instead be considered by the Employment Tribunal.

1. Appeal against reconsideration judgment allowed. The Employment Judge’s reasons did not show that the mandatory reconsideration procedure had been followed.
2. The Tribunal had to determine whether the application was in time and, if necessary, whether time should be extended. Only then could it refuse the application as out of time. If the application was in time, or time was extended, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the judgment and follow the further prescribed procedural steps.
3. The structured stages identified in Tesco Stores Limited v Element & others [2026] EAT 33 were useful guidance. Reconsideration is particularly apt where procedural problems may have denied a party a fair and proper opportunity to present its case, as explained in Trimble v Supertravel Ltd [1982] ICR 440.
4. The pendency of an appeal does not itself justify refusing reconsideration. The Employment Tribunal may be better placed to investigate procedural problems through evidence, questions to its administration and review of the complete file. The time limit applies to party applications, but not to reconsideration by the Tribunal on its own initiative, including following a request from the EAT: Banerjee v Royal Bank of Canada [2021] ICR 359.
5. The reconsideration application was remitted to a different Employment Judge. The substantive appeal was stayed pending that determination.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal against refusal of reconsideration and remitted the application to a different Employment Judge. The substantive appeal was stayed.
• Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Harris refused the reconsideration application dated 18 June 2024. The judgment was dated 9 July 2024 and sent on 20 August 2024.
• Employment Tribunal: the original substantive judgment followed the hearing on 4 March 2019 and found that CSS was the claimant’s employer.