Employment Appeal Tribunal Orders Reconsideration of Car Sales Solutions Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has allowed an appeal against the refusal of a reconsideration application, ordering a fresh hearing due to procedural errors.
• public
Tribunal Overturns Reconsideration Refusal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in dismissing an application for reconsideration, remitting the case for a fresh hearing. The decision in Car Sales Solutions Limited v Mr V Riekstins ( EAT 72) highlights significant procedural issues that led to the appeal.
Procedural Irregularities Alleged
The appeal centred on how the ET handled administrative and other errors during the proceedings. Mr Riekstins had brought claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and failure to provide written employment particulars. A substantive judgment was made in his favour, awarding him £5,280.00 in unpaid wages and £1,956.00 for the lack of a written statement. Crucially, neither Car Sales Solutions Limited (CSS) nor Car Sales Hampshire Limited (CSH) appeared at this hearing.
Following this, CSS applied for a reconsideration of the judgment. This application was refused by the ET, which cited the application being out of time and the subject matter already being before the EAT. However, the EAT found that the ET had not followed the required stages for considering a reconsideration application. It noted that the application was made after documentation came to light during the EAT proceedings, implicitly seeking an extension of time which was not properly considered.
EAT's Decision and Remission
His Honour Judge James Tayler stated that the ET's reasoning for refusing reconsideration was insufficient. The appeal against the refusal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Employment Tribunal to be determined by a different Employment Judge. The EAT stressed the importance of a fair and proper opportunity for parties to present their case.
The judge also pointed out that the case had been significantly delayed, partly due to the initial improper institution of the appeal and subsequent preliminary hearings. The EAT requested that the Employment Tribunal expedite the determination of the reconsideration application if possible. The substantive appeal remains stayed pending the outcome of the reconsideration.
Read the entire judgment here: Car Sales Solutions Ltd (formerly known as Hunter Devine Capital Ltd) v Mr V Riekstins EAT 72
