Reconsideration refused: former employee's claim of fabricated photos failed
A former employee who alleged that photographic evidence was fabricated has had her application for reconsideration refused. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of the original decision being changed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #reconsideration
- #photographic-evidence
- #protected-disclosure
- #unfair-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant applied for reconsideration of a judgment sent on 23 February 2023.
- The claimant alleged fabricated photographs were submitted as evidence.
- The respondent sent an email during the hearing showing a time-stamped photograph.
- The tribunal found the claimant's argument about missing photographs had little prospect of success.
- Even if all photographs were ignored, the tribunal's conclusions on liability would remain the same.
- The claimant had not made protected disclosures, so her claims for automatically unfair dismissal and detriment failed.
Timeline
-
Substantive hearing
The hearing took place. The claimant disputed the validity of photographs. The respondent sent an email with a time-stamped photograph during a break.
-
Original judgment sent
The tribunal sent its judgment to the parties, dismissing the claimant's claims.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration, arguing fabricated photographs and other issues.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Walker refused the application, finding no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to reconsider its earlier judgment dismissing the claimant's unfair dismissal claims, based on her allegation that the respondent had submitted fabricated photographic evidence.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the application for reconsideration.
Key reasons:
- The photographic evidence was available at the original hearing, so it was not new.
- The claimant's argument that missing photos indicated fabrication had little prospect of success; there could be innocent explanations.
- Even if all disputed photos were ignored, a third photo and the tribunal's findings on protected disclosures meant the original decision would stand.
No compensation was awarded as the original claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you dispute evidence at a hearing, raise it before the hearing so the other side can respond — raising it on the day may weaken your case.
- Allegations of fraud require clear proof; a missing photo in a camera roll is not enough to show fabrication.
- Reconsideration is not a chance to re-argue points that were available at the original hearing.
A dispute over photographs
This case shows how difficult it can be to overturn a tribunal decision after the hearing. The former employee argued that the respondent had fabricated photographic evidence used in the original hearing. She pointed to a missing photo in a camera roll as proof. However, the tribunal noted that the email showing the camera roll was sent during the hearing and was available to both sides at the time. Raising the issue later did not make it new evidence.
What the tribunal considered
The judge carefully examined the claimant's argument but found it had little prospect of success. Even if the two disputed photos were unreliable, a third photo from a different source showed the same scene. More importantly, the tribunal's original decision did not rest on the photos alone — it found that the claimant had not made protected disclosures, which was the key legal issue. Ignoring all the photos would not change that conclusion.
Why this matters
For anyone considering a similar claim, this case highlights two important points. First, if you believe evidence is fabricated, you need to raise it clearly and promptly — ideally before or during the hearing, not after. Second, reconsideration is a limited remedy. It is not an appeal or a chance to re-run your case. The tribunal will only revisit a decision if there is a real prospect of a different outcome. Here, even the claimant's strongest argument would not have changed the result, so the application was refused.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: pre-school practitioner's disclosures not protected
A pre-school practitioner who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case after the tribunal found her disclosures did not tend to show health or safety endangerment.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out as five months late
A tribunal struck out a former employee's claims because they were presented five months late, and refused to extend time even after the employee submitted additional medical evidence.
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.
School transport driver wins £3,361 for unpaid wages but loses discrimination claim
A tribunal awarded £3,361.96 to a taxi driver who was denied holiday pay and had unauthorised deductions made, but rejected her claims of sex discrimination and detriment for whistleblowing.