Cases1304996/2024

Claimant v Mitie Security

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the material period. The evidence did not establish substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, and there was insufficient evidence to establish that effects would last 12 months. The burden of proof lay on the claimant and was not discharged.

Facts

This is a reconsideration application following a preliminary hearing on 27 May 2025 where the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant was represented by counsel instructed by Thompsons Solicitors but no psychiatric expert report was obtained. Following the judgment sent on 26 June 2025, Thompsons Solicitors admitted a conflict and confirmed they had failed to obtain the expert report. The claimant applied for reconsideration seeking either to have the judgment set aside or an adjournment to obtain expert evidence.

Decision

Employment Judge McCluggage refused the reconsideration application at the preliminary sift stage under Rule 70(2) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judge found: (1) ground one was misconceived as seeking to argue error of law rather than reconsideration; (2) there was no new evidence meeting the Ladd v Marshall test, only a request for an opportunity to obtain evidence that should have been obtained before the hearing; and (3) representative failure does not generally justify reconsideration and would undermine finality of litigation.

Practical note

Reconsideration is not a mechanism to re-run a case with better evidence that could and should have been obtained before the original hearing, and representative failings will not generally constitute grounds for reconsideration where a party had full opportunity to present their case.

Legal authorities cited

J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] ICR 1052Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd [2009] ICR 1056Newcastle upon Tyne City Council v Marsden [2010] ICR 743Phipps v Priory Education Services Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 652Trimble v Supertravel Ltd [1982] ICR 440Ladd v MarshallIronsides Ray & Vials v Lindsay [1994] ICR 384Ministry of Justice v Burton [2016] EWCA Civ 714

Statutes

Equality Act 2010

Case details

Case number
1304996/2024
Decision date
25 June 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes

Claimant representation

Represented
No