Employment Tribunal reconsideration: Rule 69 reasons, 14-day deadline and evidence

Use the current procedural rules, not an old rule number

The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 govern the reconsideration framework and were amended in 2026. Begin by obtaining the written judgment and every version of reasons sent by the Tribunal. Record the case number, parties, judgment date, date the judgment was sent, date any written summary reasons were sent and date any written full reasons were sent. Older guides may quote the earlier 2013 procedural rules or an earlier formulation of Rule 69. A current application should identify the present Rules and the amendments that apply to the sending dates in the particular case.

Rule 68 contains the core power. The Tribunal may reconsider a judgment on its own initiative or on a party’s application where reconsideration is necessary in the interests of justice. A judgment under reconsideration may be confirmed, varied or revoked. If it is revoked, the Tribunal may take the decision again and is not required to reach the same conclusion. This framework means that an application should identify the precise judgment and the precise change sought, rather than simply asking the Tribunal to “look again” at the entire case.

Calculate the Rule 69 deadline from the later relevant sending event

The 2026 amendment changed the wording of Rule 69 so the written application must be sent no later than 14 days from the later of the relevant sending events. The current rule distinguishes the judgment, any written summary reasons sent separately from the judgment, and any written full reasons sent separately. Create a date table showing each document, the date on which the Tribunal sent it, whether it was sent separately, and the resulting final date for the reconsideration application. Keep the Tribunal email or transmission record that proves each date.

Do not calculate the period only from the date the party opened the email or read the document unless a case-specific direction makes that fact relevant. The rule focuses on the Tribunal’s sending event. If the judgment and reasons were sent on different dates, preserve both communications. If it is unclear whether a later document is summary reasons or full reasons, keep the complete document and covering message and calculate conservatively. A deadline sheet should be prepared before substantive drafting so the application is not completed accurately but sent late.

Separate a clerical correction from substantive reconsideration

Rule 67 deals with correction of clerical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions in Tribunal documents. A misspelled name, obvious transcription error or accidental omission may call for a correction rather than substantive reconsideration. Review the judgment and decide whether the requested change merely corrects the document or would require the Tribunal to reconsider reasoning, factual findings or outcome. The application should use the route that matches the actual problem.

Do not disguise a substantive challenge as a slip correction merely because the correction route appears simpler. If the requested change would alter liability, remedy or the Tribunal’s reasoning, explain the reconsideration basis. Equally, do not burden a simple correction with a lengthy Rule 68 argument. Where both types of problem exist, separate them in the correspondence: identify the clerical correction requested under the correction rule, then identify any distinct substantive reconsideration ground under Rules 68 to 70.

State the interests-of-justice basis precisely

The application must explain why reconsideration is necessary in the interests of justice. Start with the paragraph or part of the judgment challenged. Identify the event, evidence or procedural point said to justify reconsideration and state the result sought. Examples of potentially relevant issues may include a material procedural problem, a demonstrable misunderstanding of the record, significant evidence that could not reasonably have been deployed before judgment, or another case-specific circumstance affecting fairness. The application should explain the connection between that circumstance and the judgment.

Avoid presenting reconsideration as a second opportunity to repeat submissions the Tribunal has already considered and rejected. Rule 70 allows an application to be refused where there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked, including situations involving substantially repetitive applications unless special reasons exist. A useful drafting test is whether each ground identifies something more specific than disagreement with the conclusion. If it does not, reconsider whether it belongs in the application.

Map each ground to the judgment and the existing record

Create a working table with columns for judgment paragraph, issue decided, material that was before the Tribunal, alleged reconsideration problem, supporting document and requested change. This prevents the application from making broad statements that the Tribunal ignored evidence without showing where the evidence appeared. If a point was in the ET1, ET3, witness statement, bundle or written submissions, identify the relevant location. If the Tribunal made a procedural ruling affecting that material, record the ruling and its consequence.

Where the application challenges a factual finding, distinguish a request to reconsider from an appeal point. A reconsideration application should not simply substitute the losing party’s preferred view of evidence. Explain why the interests of justice justify reopening the identified conclusion. If the real complaint is an alleged error of law suitable for an Employment Appeal Tribunal route, calculate that separate deadline and obtain appropriate advice. Do not assume that filing reconsideration stops another statutory time limit.

Deal carefully with new evidence

If the application relies on material not previously before the Tribunal, state when the evidence came into existence or when it was obtained, why it was not reasonably available for the hearing, what fact it proves and why that fact could matter to the judgment. Attach the complete document rather than an isolated extract where context is important. If the evidence existed earlier but was not used, explain the circumstances candidly. Finality is part of procedural fairness, so unexplained late evidence should not be presented as though its lateness were irrelevant.

Check authenticity and dates. For an email, preserve sender, recipient, timestamp and attachment. For a document obtained from an employer or public authority, retain the transmission showing when it was supplied. For a witness account, distinguish recollection from contemporaneous records. Do not create a later summary and describe it as contemporaneous evidence. The application is stronger when it is transparent about what is genuinely new and why that new material could justify a different or varied judgment.

Explain any procedural unfairness with a complete chronology

If the ground concerns lack of notice, inability to attend, late disclosure, technical failure, refusal of an adjournment or another procedural event, reconstruct the sequence precisely. Include hearing notices, communications with the Tribunal, medical or technical evidence where relevant, attempts to notify the other party and what happened at the hearing. The application should show the practical effect on the party’s ability to present the case, not merely label the process unfair.

Where the party attended but says a point could not be addressed, identify what happened in the hearing as accurately as possible. Use the official record or contemporaneous note where available. Avoid attributing motives to the Tribunal. The relevant question is what procedural event occurred, what material could not be presented or tested, and why reconsideration is said to be necessary to cure the resulting problem. A measured factual account is more useful than accusatory language.

Keep the application concise and indexed

Prepare a written application with the case number, parties, judgment date, relevant sending dates, Rule 69 deadline calculation, grounds for reconsideration and exact result sought. Use numbered paragraphs and separate each ground. Attach a short index of documents relied on. If written reasons were sent separately, include them because they are relevant both to timing and to the reasoning under challenge. If the application relies on only a few bundle pages, extract or clearly identify those pages instead of resending the entire hearing bundle.

Rule 70 requires the Tribunal to consider the application and permits refusal where there is no reasonable prospect of variation or revocation. The written application must therefore stand on its own at the screening stage. It should not depend on a future hearing to reveal the actual ground. State the essential evidence now. A concise application does not mean a vague one; it means that every paragraph advances the identified reconsideration issue and unnecessary history has been removed.

Understand the Rule 70 screening process

After receiving an application under Rule 69, the Tribunal must consider it. If the Tribunal concludes there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked, the application must be refused and the parties informed. This screening stage makes repetition particularly unhelpful. The application should show a coherent route from the identified problem to a possible variation or revocation of judgment. If the proposed change would not affect the judgment at all, explain why reconsideration is nevertheless necessary or reconsider the ground.

If the application is not refused at screening, Rule 70 provides for notice to the parties specifying a period for written representations and seeking views on whether the application can be determined without a hearing. The notice may contain provisional views. Preserve it and comply with the stated date. Do not assume that passing the initial screening means the judgment will be changed. It means the application proceeds to the next procedural stage.

Respond to Rule 70 representations rather than repeating the original case

If the Tribunal invites written representations, answer the issues identified in its notice. Where the other party opposes reconsideration, separate factual corrections from legal submissions and refer to the record. If the Tribunal states a provisional view, address that view directly. A second document that merely copies the original application uses the opportunity poorly and may leave the decisive question unanswered.

Rule 70 permits reconsideration without a hearing in appropriate circumstances while requiring a reasonable opportunity for further written representations. If a party considers a hearing necessary, explain why oral determination is required for the reconsideration issue. For example, identify a factual conflict or procedural question that cannot fairly be resolved from the existing documents. Avoid asserting a general entitlement to a new hearing simply because the original outcome is challenged.

Keep reconsideration and appeal deadlines on separate sheets

Reconsideration is a request to the Employment Tribunal to revisit its own judgment under the Rules. An appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a different process concerned with its own jurisdiction, procedure and time limits. A party considering both routes should calculate each deadline independently from the official documents and rules. Do not assume that the reconsideration application automatically suspends or extends an appeal period. Where the legal character of the challenge is uncertain, obtain advice early rather than waiting for the reconsideration outcome.

Create one deadline sheet for Rule 69 and another for any appeal-related step. Record the date judgment and reasons were sent, the date the reconsideration application was sent, any Rule 70 notice, and the date of the reconsideration decision. This prevents later confusion over which document triggered which period. If an appeal is contemplated, preserve the complete record relied on for reconsideration because it may also be relevant to explaining the procedural history.

Preserve proof of transmission

Keep the email, online submission confirmation, postal record or other permitted proof showing when the application and attachments were sent to the Tribunal. Check the current case correspondence for the correct address or digital channel. The date printed at the top of the application does not prove timely submission. Save a copy of every attachment exactly as sent so there is no later uncertainty about whether the Tribunal received the reasons, exhibits or authority mentioned in the body of the application.

If the application is sent close to the deadline, verify that the transmission completed and that attachments were not rejected for size or format. If a delivery problem occurs, document it immediately and use the correct alternative channel where permitted. If the application is already late, state the dates honestly and identify the procedural basis on which the Tribunal is asked to consider the delay. Do not silently alter the document date.

Record the reconsideration outcome as a new procedural event

When the Tribunal determines the application, retain the reconsideration decision, any varied or revoked judgment and any new written reasons. Compare the operative documents and identify exactly what changed. If an award, remedy or case-management direction is altered, update the deadline and payment records. Do not continue circulating the original judgment without noting that it has been varied or revoked.

If reconsideration is refused, preserve the refusal and the date it was sent. The next procedural step depends on the actual order, reasons and any appeal rights. A complete case file should show the original judgment, reasons, reconsideration application, supporting evidence, Rule 70 correspondence and final reconsideration outcome in chronological order. This avoids later arguments based on an outdated version of the decision.

Official sources checked

• Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 — Part 12 — Statutory reconsideration framework in Rules 68 to 70.
• Tribunal Procedure and Employment Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 — Amendments applying from 2 March 2026, including the current Rule 69 sending-date structure.

Final preparation check

Verify the operative judgment, every sending date, the current Rule 69 deadline, the exact interests-of-justice ground, supporting documents, proof of submission and any separate appeal deadline before acting. The Tribunal’s current directions and the latest statutory text control over a saved template.