Car Sales Solutions v Riekstins: EAT overturns reconsideration refusal over procedural failings

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has allowed an appeal by Car Sales Solutions Limited against an employment tribunal's refusal to reconsider a substantive judgement, finding that the tribunal below failed to follow the required procedural stages and provided wholly inadequate reasoning for its decision. The case, which has its origins in a 2018 wages claim, has taken nearly eight years to reach this point.

The underlying dispute arose from a claim brought by Mr V Riekstins for unauthorised deduction from wages and failure to provide written particulars of employment. Following a hearing in Southampton on 4 March 2019, Employment Judge David Harris found that Car Sales Solutions Limited (CSS) was the claimant's employer, awarding £5,280 in unpaid wages and a further £1,956 under section 38(3) of the Employment Act 2002. Critically, neither CSS nor its co-respondent, Car Sales Hampshire Limited (CSH), attended the hearing or was represented.

The proceedings were plagued from the outset by administrative errors. Correspondence was sent to an incorrect email address for the respondents' representative, Mr Tricker. A notice of hearing issued in November 2018 carried the wrong date. The claim had initially been served only on CSH, with the claim against CSS's director Mr Taylor rejected at the acceptance stage, meaning CSS's formal involvement as a respondent was itself the product of an amendment process that was far from clearly communicated. The responses of both companies were subsequently struck out in November 2018 for failure to comply with case management orders, a decision whose notification was itself undermined by the same email address errors.

CSS applied for reconsideration of the substantive judgement in June 2024, arguing the application was made promptly after relevant documents emerged during the EAT appeal proceedings. Employment Judge Harris refused the application in July 2024 in brief terms, stating it was out of time and, in the alternative, that the subject matter was already before the EAT.

His Honour Judge James Tayler, sitting in the EAT, found both grounds of refusal to be deficient. On the question of timeliness, the judge noted that whilst the application did not expressly seek an extension of time, it was implicit from the circumstances, and the tribunal was obliged to consider whether such an extension should be granted. The failure to engage with that question was an error of law.

On the alternative ground, HHJ Tayler was unequivocal: the fact that proceedings are live before the EAT is not a proper reason to refuse reconsideration. The EAT frequently requests that a tribunal reconsider a judgement precisely in order to avoid the need for an appeal to be pursued, and the tribunal is often better placed than the appellate court to investigate procedural irregularities through evidence and examination of the full case file.

The judge drew on the structured framework for reconsideration applications set out in Tesco Stores Limited v Element & others [2026] EAT 33 and the earlier principle in Trimble v Supertravel Ltd [1982] ICR 440, confirming that reconsideration is particularly apt where a party may not have had a fair and proper opportunity to present its case.

The reconsideration application is remitted to a different employment judge. The substantive appeal remains stayed pending that determination. HHJ Tayler requested that the tribunal expedite the remitted hearing, noting that the claimant has been kept out of his award for a considerable number of years.

CSS will be required to provide evidence, supported by a statement of truth, addressing the relationship between the two companies, the scope of Mr Tricker's retainer, and precisely when and how it became aware of both the strike-out warning and the March 2019 hearing date.