Claimant v The Stepstone Group UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person under s.6 EqA 2010. The judge reviewed several entries in GP records and an Occupational Health report, finding that adequate reasons were given for rejecting the claimant's arguments about disability status. The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused as it was merely an attempt to reargue the same claim.
The claimant's application relating to Section 108 EqA 2010 was refused. The claimant stated he was seeking clarification rather than amendment, but the tribunal found that if no amendment was sought, then the decision to refuse amendment was manifestly correct. The substantive victimisation claim remains to be determined at the final hearing listed for 2026.
Facts
This is a reconsideration application following a preliminary hearing judgment on 17 November 2025. The claimant sought reconsideration of findings that he was not a disabled person under s.6 EqA 2010 and reconsideration of a refusal to allow amendment relating to s.108 EqA 2010. The claimant also applied for the judge to recuse herself. The tribunal had previously reviewed GP records and an Occupational Health report in determining disability status.
Decision
The tribunal refused all applications. The judge found that the claimant's applications were merely attempts to reargue claims already determined, with no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. The disability finding was based on proper consideration of medical evidence, and the amendment refusal was correct given the claimant's own statement that he was not seeking to amend. The recusal application was also refused.
Practical note
Reconsideration applications that simply seek to reargue the same points already decided will be refused at the initial filter stage as having no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 72.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6005922/2024
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No