The Tribunal noted in their judgment that the Methodist Home for the Aged "made it explicitly clear that there were no circumstances in which the Claimant (Ms Breslin) would ever be permitted to return to her former position." Ms Breslin nonetheless sought an order for her reinstatement, with Mr Barnett, who appeared on her behalf, saying that if it was granted but not followed, she would be entitled to additional compensation.

Although Miss Summers-Shaw, representing the Methodist Home, did not object initially, she later wrote to the Tribunal saying "that as a matter of law a claimant could not ever have an order for compensation and reinstatement / re-engagement."

Ms Breslin applied for the judgment to be amended using the 'slip rule' which allows for any accidental slip or omissions to be corrected. Advocate Ian Jones, the Tribunal Deputy Chairman, however, refused saying there had been no such slip. He noted in his judgment: "I make this finding because having revisited the hearing I do not accept that the parties ‘agreed’ the Tribunal ‘had jurisdiction to make an award in respect of the admitted sums and also agreed that the Tribunal should go on to determine the issue of reinstatement."

Mr Barnett tried to claim the original judgment was invalid as it had been issued by the Tribunal Registrar and sent to the parties by email. Advocate Jones noted: "While I enjoyed the ingenuity of Mr Barnett’s carefully crafted argument, I was equally not at all persuaded by it.

"...I do not accept that anything turns on the fact the Judgment was communicated to the parties by email nor do I accept that it is at all significant that I did not send it directly to the parties, but rather through the Registrar."

Pictured: Advocate Jones said Ms Breslin's application to be reinstated was "doomed to failure."

Ms Summers-Shaw also applied to strike-out Ms Breslin's claim on the basis that it was either scandalous, vexatious or had no reasonable prospect of success. Her argument was that the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 was clear that Ms Breslin's claim could not proceed and that previous decisions of the Tribunal had made it clear that an order for compensation and reinstatement was not possible.

Advocate Jones however added that she had not been able to indicate any part of the Law that made her argument clear as she contended, nor did she direct him to any case-law that could have been of assistance.

He noted: "I have no wish to be critical of either party or their Counsel, and I wish to be clear that I am not being critical. However, to assist those appearing on behalf of either Claimants or Respondents the Tribunal would normally expect a representative appearing on behalf of a party to: (i) be able to take the Tribunal to specific part of any legislation upon which they rely; and (ii) be prepared to hand-up case reports and draw the Tribunal’s attention to the specific parts of a case upon which they rely.

"This not only assists the Tribunal but also ensures that the opposing party understands the basis of the arguments that are being put."

Advocate Jones said that while Mr Barnett had made interesting arguments against Ms Summers-Shaw's application, he wasn't able to convince him that Ms Breslin was entitled to two sets of compensation. Advocate Jones said this was only possible "when an order for re-engagement or reinstatement is made by the Tribunal and then subsequently not complied with."

He explained that, as Ms Breslin had requested a Judgment which the Methodist Home had agreed to and paid the compensation, her claim for reinstatement was  "doomed to failure." He therefore struck out her claim "on the basis that following the Judgment it has no reasonable prospect of success."