Mr M Tranter v Woodhull Roofing Ltd and Mr S Pike: 1306150/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1306150/2023

Between

Mr M Tranter.Claimant

Woodhull Roofing Ltd (1), Mr S Pike (2).Respondent

Before

Employment Judge Murdin

Date 11 September 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]This matter has a complex procedural history, which for these purposes, it is necessary to summarise:

[2]The Claimant was formerly employed by Woodhull Roofing Limited, a roofing company, which was incorporated in 1971. Mr Stephen Pike became a Director in 2013. He has been described as being the owner of the Company. Mr Dale Chattaway became a Director in 2018 and ceased to be a Director in December 2023. It is alleged that he ran the Company on a day-to-day basis as its Contracts Director. Ms Brigitta Goff was neither an employee nor Director of the Respondent Company but was engaged by the Company as a Human Resources Consultant.

[3]Early conciliation had been commenced through ACAS being notified by the Claimant of the prospective Claim against the First Respondent (the “Respondent Company”) on 20 July 2024. ACAS issued the early conciliation certificate on 31 August 2024. PHCM Order 1 of 16 September 2023

[4]The ET1 Form of Claim was received by the Tribunal on 26 September 2023 and cited the Respondent Company and Mr Dale Chattaway as Respondents. However, no separate ACAS certificate had been obtained for the proceedings against Mr Chattaway. As a result, the Claim Form had been referred to Senior Legal Officer Metcalf who rejected the Claim against Mr Castaway.

[5]At section 8.1 of the Form of Claim, the specific complaint identified was that of disability discrimination. However, in the box for other types of complaints, the Claimant also stated that he was complaining of harassment / bullying.

[6]In the typed attachment to the Claim Form, the Claimant relied upon having a relevant disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression, anxiety and insomnia although the relevant dates for any such disability were not given save that the Claimant stated that the Respondent(s) had knowledge of the disability from 7 July 2022 when he was originally signed off work by his GP.

[7]The typed attachment set out a detailed narrative dating from the death of the Claimant’s father in June 2022 and a resultant lengthy absence from work and arrangements for a phased return to work in January 2023. The narrative complained about the Claimant’s treatment over the course of his sickness absence and once he returned to work.

[8]The Claimant complained about the Respondent(s) seeking to bring to an end or change the arrangements for a phased return to work which would have involved part-time working rather than full-time working with this culminating in a meeting in July 2023 following which the Claimant was signed off work for another extended period.

[9]The Claimant alleges that his treatment amounted to both direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and harassment related to disability and also alleges there was a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

[10]A detailed Response was filed on 15 November 2023. At this time the Claimant was still absent due to sickness. PHCM Order 2 of 16 September 2023

[11]The Grounds of Resistance raised issues in respect of time limits and whether the Claimant was disabled at the material time (the time of any alleged discriminatory treatment), as well as that of knowledge of any disability.

[12]Essentially, the Response denied that the treatment of the Claimant was discriminatory and it was claimed that there had been compliance with any duty to make reasonable adjustments.

[13]Standard Directions were made by the Tribunal for the Claimant to disclose evidence in relation to his alleged disability. The resultant Disability Impact Statement relies upon the Claimant having suffered from depression with symptoms including anxiety, insomnia and very low mood. The symptoms commenced following the death of his father in June 2022.

[14]As a result of the disclosure of evidence as to disability, the Respondent Company subsequently conceded that the Claimant had a relevant disability at the material time which was identified as being between August 2022 and the end of July 2023.

[15]A preliminary hearing took place before Employment Judge Beck on 18 June 2024 which resulted in the case been listed for a six-day final hearing in January 2025.

[16]At this hearing, the Claimant applied for Mr Dale Chattaway to be joined as a Respondent which was refused.

[17]Directions were made in respect of a Schedule of Loss, disclosure, a Bundle for the final hearing and witness statements.

[18]In the Case Summary provided by Employment Judge Beck, it was identified that the Claimant was alleging harassment related to disability by both Mr Chattaway and Ms Goff. It was noted that the Respondent confirmed that it accepted vicarious liability for the actions of Mr Chattaway.

[19]In relation to the actions of Ms Goff, it was noted that she was not an employee but acted as a Consultant. Employment Judge Beck stated that “I did point out to the claimant that PHCM Order 3 of 16 September 2023 (he) may want to consider seeking permission to join her as a respondent / or she may have liability if facts were proven against her as a company agent”. The Claimant did not, at this stage, take steps to add Ms Goff as a Respondent.

[20]From this, it would appear that the reasoning of Employment Judge Beck in refusing the application to add Mr Chattaway as a party must have been based, at least in part, on the fact that the Respondent Company would potentially be liable for any discriminatory acts on his part, whereas the possibility that liability for the actions of Ms Goff would not rest with an existing Respondent had effectively caused her to raise the possibility of Ms Goff being added as a Respondent.

[21]On the basis of the clarification as to the Claimant’s complaints which was provided during the hearing, and subject to any further particulars which the Claimant was ordered to provide, Employment Judge Beck formulated the List of Issues which would need to be determined at any final hearing.

[22]Eleven complaints of harassment were identified. Seven of them specifically relate to alleged treatment by Mr Chattaway, including at a meeting on 20 July 2023 which was also conducted by Ms Goff, with two further allegations relating to the correspondence sent to the Claimant following that meeting. The third of the eleven complaints also makes an allegation of harassment by Ms Goff over a period of time.

[23]There were eight allegations of direct disability discrimination identified, including one relating to the meeting on 20 July 2023 and three others which specifically related to the alleged treatment of the Claimant by Mr Chattaway.

[24]The allegations of discrimination arising from disability related to text messages, although the senders of the text messages were not specifically identified. One of them was stated to have been sent during the meeting on 20 July 2023.

[25]The allegations of a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments largely related to not adjusting the working arrangements in terms of the days which the Claimant worked. Further particulars were identified as being needed as to both substantial disadvantage and adjustments. The Claimant subsequently provided such further particulars. PHCM Order 4 of 16 September 2023

[26]The Respondent Company also provided further particulars of its justification defence.

[27]On 20 September 2024, the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal stating that he had received information that day to the effect that the Respondent had informed its employees that they were redundant and the Company was ceasing trading.

[28]On 8 October 2024 the Claimant made an application to add Stephen Pike as a Respondent. The grounds for the application were stated to be that, in circumstances where it had been accepted that the Respondent had vicarious liability for the acts of Mr Chattaway, the Respondent Company had now “filed for insolvency, thus absolving themselves from any liability” if the claim is successful.

[29]Companies House information shows that a voluntary Creditors’ winding up petition was passed on 15 November 2024 resulting in the appointment of an insolvency practitioner as a voluntary liquidator.

[30]Stephen Pike responded to the application to be added as the Respondent by pointing out that none of the complaints in the List of Issues specifically referred to him as having carried out any discriminatory acts. He pointed out that his status as a Director did not cause him to be personally liable. He also pointed out that the application to add him as a party was being made over fourteen months after the last act complained about which the Claimant was complaining.

[31]On 8 November 2024, the Claimant’s application was refused by Employment Judge Bansal on the basis that none of the allegations were alleged to have been personally caused or permitted by Mr Pike and the fact that the Respondent Company was now in voluntary liquidation was not a good reason to join Mr Pike, as a Director, to the Claim.

[32]I note that this decision letter was not on the digital Tribunal file but appears in the Tribunal’s paper file for the case as well as in the Bundle for the preliminary hearing on 11 June 2025. PHCM Order 5 of 16 September 2023

[33]Following this, the tribunal reduced the hearing which had been listed for six days to commence on 6 January 2025 to a hearing listed for one day with the Notice of Hearing effectively saying that the hearing was listed for the purposes of case management.

[34]Thus, a further hearing then took place before myself on 6 January 2025, which was the date originally listed for the first day of the final hearing.

[35]It is to be noted that only the Claimant, through his representative, was in attendance on 6 January 2025, with there being no appearance on behalf of the Respondent Company, noting of course that the Company was in voluntary liquidation, and there was no appearance by any prospective Respondent. No bundle of documents was before me at the hearing.

[36]I listed a further hearing to determine the Claimant’s application to join Mr Chattaway and Ms Goff as Respondents and I stated that the Tribunal was satisfied that “circumstances have significantly changed since the Case Management hearing before Employment Judge Beck on 18 June 2024”. It was planned that, having determined these applications, the Tribunal would move to consider any outstanding case management issues.

[37]At paragraph 7 of the Record of a Preliminary Hearing, I set out the following: “Furthermore, the Tribunal granted the Claimant permission to renew his applications to join Mr D Chattaway and Ms B Goff as Respondents. The Tribunal notes with concern the proximity in time between the Respondent’s acceptance of vicarious liability leading to the refusal of the Claimant’s application before EJ Beck on 18th June 2024, and the Respondent’s entry into voluntary liquidation. The Tribunal is concerned that the interests of justice should not be frustrated”.

[38]The resultant Case Management Order records that I granted the Claimant’s application dated 8 October 2024 to join Stephen Pike as a Respondent, with this being stated to be on the basis that it was in the interests of justice for Mr Pike to be joined as a party . I gave oral reasons for the Judgment. PHCM Order 6 of 16 September 2023

[39]Since the hearing took place, an issue has arisen as to whether I was aware of the earlier decision of Employment Judge Bansal, as I was relying upon access to the Tribunal’s digital file only. On behalf the Claimant, it is suggested that I was aware of the previous decision refusing permission, and I shall return to this issue later in this judgment.

[40]On the basis that he had been joined as a Respondent, Mr Pike was ordered to file his Grounds of Resistance. Directions were made for the Claimant’s application, in relation to joining Mr Chattaway and Ms Goff as Respondents, to be made by 3 February 2025, and for Mr Chattaway and Ms Goff to respond to any application by 24 February 2025.

[41]On 20 January 2025, Solicitors for Mr Pike wrote stating that they were instructed by Mr Pike and had been provided with a copy of the Case Management Order of 6 January 2025 (which had been sent to the parties on 10 January 2025). They requested written reasons for the decision to join Mr Pike as a Respondent. On the basis of the above dates, it seems that the request for written reasons would appear to have been in time, although the request was not passed to me until on 3 April 2025.

[42]On 22 January 2025 the Claimant confirmed in writing his application to join Ms Goff and Mr Chattaway as Respondents. In relation to Mr Chattaway, the application referred to a change in circumstances since the hearing before Employment Judge Beck and the suggestion that it was in the interests of justice as a result of the Respondent Company’s entry into voluntary liquidation as the Claimant asserted that the Company could no longer take vicarious liability for the actions of Mr Chattaway.

[43]In relation to Ms Goff, reliance was similarly placed on the change in circumstances since the hearing before Employment Judge Beck when it was noted that Employment Judge Beck had asked if the Claimant would like to make an application to join Ms Goff as a Respondent, but the Claimant had declined. The change in circumstances was stated to be that of the Respondent Company filing for insolvency so as to absolve itself from any liability.

[44]The Grounds of Resistance filed by Mr Pike seek to assert that no acts are alleged for which he would be liable either personally or as a Director on the basis that under Equality Act 2010 section 109, vicarious liability can only be transferred to the employer or the PHCM Order 7 of 16 September 2023 principal and Mr Pike was not a principal within the definition of Equality Act 2010 section 41(5).

[45]As the request for written reasons as to the decision for Mr Pike to be joined as a respondent to the proceedings was only referred to me on 3 April 2025, by letter dated 8 April 2025, the parties were informed that I had directed that the request for written reasons should be refused “as the request was not made within the requisite time”.

[46]Solicitors for Mr Pike subsequently e-mailed the Tribunal on 15 April 2025 pointing out that the requisite time limit was 14 days and the request had been made within that time limit. On this basis, the letter concluded by stating that “(w)e look forward to receiving the written reasons as requested in due course”.

[47]On 11 June 2025, the mater came before EJ Kenward, when Counsel for Mr Pike suggested to EJ Kenward that the effect of the request for written reasons amounted to a request for a reconsideration of any decision to refuse the request for written reasons.

[48]According to the helpful and detailed narrative set out within the Order of EJ Kenward, there was a discussion as to the potential difficulty caused by a situation where there appeared to be two conflicting decisions as to whether an additional party (Stephen Pike) had already been added as a Respondent. Although the circumstances of Mr Pike were arguably different from those of Mr Chattaway and Ms Goff, the issue as to whether there was already an individual Respondent to the proceedings (in the form of a Director who had had significant control of the Company) was potentially a highly relevant factor in considering the applications to amend the Claim by adding Mr Chattaway and Ms Goff as Respondents. Thus, there was a concern as to whether it would be appropriate to determine the application to add these parties as Respondents without there being clarity as to the status of any previous decisions and the reasons by which any such previous decision had been reached.

[49]In the circumstances, all of the parties agreed that it would be better to adjourn any consideration of the Claimant’s applications in respect of adding Mr Chattaway and Ms Goff as Respondents until the position was clear in respect of PHCM Order 8 of 16 September 2023 any earlier decisions and the requests made by Mr Pike for written reasons of the decision to join him as a Respondent and / or any request for a reconsideration of any refusal to do so had been dealt with by the Tribunal.

[50]In the circumstances, the preliminary hearing held on 11 June 2025 was adjourned and relisted for 29 August 2025.

[51]In the circumstances I directed that the parties be written to as follows on 18 July 2025: “Employment Judge Murdin has directed that the parties provide written representations, within 7 days of this e-mail, on the basis that the Tribunal is minded to consider varying or setting aside its Order of 6th January 2025 pursuant to Rule 30(3) on the basis that there appears to be an earlier potentially conflicting decision, of which the Tribunal was unaware when it made its decision on 6th January 2025.”

[52]The reference to an earlier conflicting decision above referred to EJ Bansal’s decision not to add Mr Pike as a respondent on 8 November 2024.

[53]Ms Goff and the claimant responded to my direction for written representations. Ms Goff said that the decision taken by EJ Bansal on 8 November 2024, that Mr Pike should not be joined as a respondent, should be upheld. The claimant said that EJ Murdin’s decision of 6 January should stand. The claimant made the following point in particular: “It is incorrect to suggest that the Tribunal was unaware of the earlier refusal to add Mr Pike as a respondent. The presiding Judge on 6th January 2025 explicitly referenced the earlier decision and addressed it directly during the hearing. The transcript of the hearing will confirm beyond any doubt that the Judge was alive to this issue, gave it due weight, and nonetheless determined it appropriate to grant the application. The Tribunal is therefore not dealing with any oversight or omission under Rule 30(3), but rather a conscious and reasoned departure from the earlier decision based on a proper judicial reassessment.”

[54]Mr Pike and Mr Chattaway did not respond to EJ Murdin’s direction for written representations. PHCM Order 9 of 16 September 2023

[55]EJ Kenward wrote to Mr Pike and Mr Chattaway on 7 August 2025 as follows: “Further to the Directions of Employment Judge Murdin (attached) for written representations to be provided, Employment Judge Kenward notes that no response has been received on behalf of Mr Pike or Mr Chattaway, who are now directed to provide any written representations by return”. Mr Pike and Mr Chattaway still did not respond.

[56]On the evening before EJ Meichen’s hearing on 29 August 2025, the solicitor for Mr Pike made an application for this hearing to be postponed. The application suggested that it could be dealt with on the papers despite the fact that it had been served outside of working hours the evening before the hearing. Plainly the timing of the application meant there was no prospect of dealing with it before the hearing started.

[57]The basis of the application to postpone was that my decision of 6 January 2025 remains unclarified.

[58]On 29 August 2025, the matter came before EJ Meichen. I had not yet provided my reasons, and EJ Meichen concluded that it was not appropriate to consider the Claimant’s application in respect of adding Mr Chattaway and Ms Goff as Respondents until the position is clear in respect of the decision to join Mr Pike and the reasons for that, or until any proposal to reconsider (or vary) that decision has been made by the tribunal.

[59]Furthermore, EJ Meichen noted that only the claimant (and his wife) and myself were present at the hearing on 6 January 2025. It appeared from the correspondence that there was a significant difference of recollection between the claimant and myself as to whether the earlier decision of EJ Bansal was taken into account.

[60]EJ Meichen concluded that as this may well be an important factor in any application or proposal to vary or reconsider the decision of 6 January, it would not be appropriate for any other Judge other than myself to attempt to deal with the proposal to vary or any application to reconsider the decision of 6 January. In any event, it would be necessary to have my reasons before deciding to do that. PHCM Order 10 of 16 September 2023

[61]Consequently, the matter was again adjourned in order for me to:(i) provide written reasons for my decision taken on 6 January 2025;

(ii) consider whether I should vary and/or reconsider the decision taken on 6 January 2025.

[62]Further case management directions were also given by EJ Meichen in respect of the costs of preparation time for the adjourned hearing on 29 August 2025. Written Reasons for the decision on 6th January 2025

[63]On 6th January 2025, I gave an oral judgment granting the Claimant’s application dated 8th October 2024 to join Mr Stephen Pike. A reasoned judgment was given orally, which I summarised in my Order of the same date, stating that the Tribual considered that it was in the interests of justice for Mr Pike to be joined as a Respondent.

[64]The Claimant in the above proceedings, and in accordance with the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, applied for leave to amend his claim on 8th October 2025. The Claimant sought leave to amend his claim, by adding a new Respondent, Mr Stephen Pike.

[65]The basis for the application was as follows: as of 20th September 2024, the Claimant became aware that Woodhull Roofing Limited had filed for insolvency, therefore potentially absolving themselves from any liability if the claim was successful. Stephen Pike was the Director of Woodhull Roofing Limited.

[66]In this instance, as Stephen Pike was the Director of this company, it would only be right for Stephen Pike to be added as a new respondent and be liable if the claimants claim was successful, as Woodhull Roofing Limited will no longer exist.

[67]It was further averred that the facts relied on in respect of the claim were unaltered. Consequently, the only effect that of the amendment sought was to add a new Respondent. PHCM Order 11 of 16 September 2023

[68]The Claimant also noted that the claim was at a very early stage and Mr Pike already had knowledge of the claim and its contents. A fair trial of the claim was very much possible, and it would be in the interests of justice to allow the amendment.

[69]By contrast, the prejudice to the claimant from a refusal of the application and depriving him of his claim would be greater than any prejudice to the respondent flowing from permitting the amendment.

[70]Furthermore, it was submitted that, at the preliminary hearing on 18 June 2024, EJ Beck had decided not to add Dale Chattaway largely based on Woodhull Roofing Limited’s submission that the Respondent company would accept vicarious liability for Dale Chattaway’s actions.

[71]Rule 35 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 states as follows: 35.—(1) The Tribunal may on its own initiative, or on the application of a party or any other person wishing to become a party, add any person as a party, by way of substitution or otherwise, if it appears that there are issues between that person and any of the existing parties falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which it is in the interests of justice to have determined in the proceedings.

[72]I considered that there was clearly an issue between the Claimant and Mr Pike which fell within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In particular, I noted that the application had been made at a relatively early stage within the procedings, and that Mr Pike had been fully aware of the nature and contents of the litigation to that point. Consequently, the prejudice to him would not be significant.

[73]By contrast, I agreed with the Claimant, that he would potentially suffer significant prejudice. If the application were refused, he could potentially succeed in his claim, and be unable to recover the compensation that the Tribunal had awarded in his favour. In that context, I also noted that submissions had been made to the Tribunal on 18 June 2024 that the Respondent company would accept vicarious liability for Dale Chattaway’s actions. As a consequence of those submissions, EJ Beck had decided not to add Dale Chattaway. PHCM Order 12 of 16 September 2023

[74]Given the fact that Woodhull Roofing Limited had now filed for insolvency, I was concerned that the Claimant had been placed in an invidious position: being refused an application on the basis that the Respodnent accepted vicarious liability, only for that company to file for insolvency.

[75]I reminded myself of the overriding objective that, in so far as was practicable, the parties should be on an equal footing and cases should be dealt with fairly and justly. Furthermore, I reminded myself of The Presidential Guidance on General Case Management for England and Wales, which identifies the following additional reasons why a change to the identity of one of the parties may be called for:(i) where the respondent is a club or an unincorporated association and it is necessary to join members of the governing body;

(ii) where it is necessary to add the Secretary of State because the claim involves a challenge to a governmental decision or is one potentially involving payments out of the National Insurance Fund, or

(iii) where individual respondents apart from the employer are named in discrimination complaints.

[76]The Guidance also makes it clear that seeking to add a party in effect entails an application to amend the claim and therefore the tribunal will have to consider the type of amendment sought. For these reasons, the following general principles in terms of determining applications to amend were relevant: In Chapman and ors v Goonvean and Rostowrack China Clay Co Ltd

1973 ICR 50

, NIRC, Sir John Donaldson stressed that, in making use of their discretionary power to amend, tribunals should seek to do justice between the parties having regard to the circumstances of the case. Then, in Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd and anor

1974 ICR 650

, NIRC, he laid down a general procedure for tribunals to follow when deciding whether to allow amendments to claim forms involving changing the basis of the claim or adding or substituting respondents. The key principle was that in exercising their discretion, tribunals must have regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to any injustice or hardship which would result from the amendment or a refusal to make it. This test (‘the Cocking test’) was approved in subsequent cases and was restated by the EAT in Selkent PHCM Order 13 of 16 September 2023 Bus Co Ltd v Moore

1996 ICR 836

, EAT (whose approach was itself endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Ali v Office of National Statistics

2005 IRLR 201

, CA).

[77]When considering an application to amend a claim, I also reminded myself of the words of Mr Justice Langstaff (then President of the EAT) in Chandhok v Tirkey

2015 ICR 527

, EAT: ‘The claim, as set out in the ET1, is not something just to set the ball rolling, as an initial document necessary to comply with time limits but which is otherwise free to be augmented by whatever the parties choose to add or subtract merely upon their say so. Instead, it serves not only a useful but a necessary function. It sets out the essential case. It is that to which a respondent is required to respond. A respondent is not required to answer a witness statement, nor a document, but the claims made — meaning, under the [Tribunal Rules], the claim as set out in the ET1.’ It follows that if a claimant wishes to argue a claim that is not set out in the ET1, they should make a formal application to amend and should not assume that such an application will necessarily be successful.

[78]I considered that this application did not involve any factual amendments to the Claim Form, was made at an early stage, and sought to add a Respondent already fully aware of the proceedings. I agreed with the Claimant that refusal of the application could potentially result in very significant prejudice to the Claimant as against little to no prejudice to Mr Pike, and I reminded myself that an application to add Mr Chattaway had been refused on the basis that the Respondent company accepted that it would be vicariously liable for his actions.

[79]In those circumstances, I considered that it was in the interests of justice to add Mr Pike to the claim, and I granted the Claimant’s application. The decision of EJ Bansal

[80]A preliminary issue has arisen as to whether I was aware of EJ Bansal’s decision made on 8th November 2024 to refuse the Claimant’s application on the basis that none of the allegations were alleged to have been personally caused or permitted by Mr Pike and the fact that the Respondent Company now being in voluntary liquidation was not a good reason to join Mr Pike, as a Director, to the Claim. PHCM Order 14 of 16 September 2023

[81]I note that this decision letter was not on the digital Tribunal file but appeared in the Tribunal’s paper file for the case as well as in the Bundle for the preliminary hearing on 11 June 2025.

[82]I am aware that it is the view of the Claimant that I was aware of that decision and referenced it in my determination. However, and having carefully reconsidered my notes of the hearing, and noting that the decision letter in relation to EJ Bansal’s decision is not part of the electronic record of this file, I have concluded that I was not aware of that decision.

[83]However, and even if I am wrong about my knowledge of DJ Bansal’s decision and I was aware of it at the time of my decision on 6th January 2025, my determination of the application remains unaltered.

[84]Rule 30 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 grants the Tribunal the following powers: 30.(1) Subject to rule 32(2) and (3) (postponements), the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party, make a case management order.

(2) The particular powers identified in these Rules do not restrict that general power.

(3) A case management order may vary, suspend or set aside an earlier case management order where that is necessary in the interests of justice, and in particular where a party affected by the earlier order did not have a reasonable opportunity to make representations before it was made.

[85]In circumstances where I am wrong about my knowledge of EJ Bansal’s Order, I rely upon the Tribunal’s powers as set out above in Rule 30 to set aside an earlier case management Order where that is necessary in the interests of justice.

[86]In reaching that determination, I have considered all of the factors set out above at paragraphs 72-79. Consequently, and if necessary, I set aside the decision of EJ Bansal dated 8th November 2024, and I grant the Claimant’s application. PHCM Order 15 of 16 September 2023 Conclusion For the reasons stated above, I grant the Claimant’s application. 87. Further hearing

[88]A further hearing has already been listed to take place at Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 30th September 2025. EJ Meichen has already made directions in respect of that hearing.

[89]Any further case management directions which are necessary can be made at that hearing. EJ Murdin 11th September 2025 PHCM Order 16 of 16 September 2023