L Turner v St Catherine’s Catholic School: 2304797/2024
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Disability[1]At the relevant times the claimant was a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of back problems/spinal arthritis.[2]From 5 November 2022 the claimant was a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of a prolapsed bladder. 2304797/2024 2[3]From 1 November 2023 the claimant was a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of a combination of stress, anxiety, depression, unstable angina and high blood pressure.[4]Any relevant complaints of such disabilities falling within the relevant time periods for such disabilities can therefore proceed. Any such complaints falling outside the relevant time periods are dismissed.[5]At the relevant times the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of learning disabilities. Any complaints relating to learning disabilities are therefore dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Lumby 23 July 2025 _____________ Sent to Parties. 24 July 2025 Note Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.REASONS
[1]The Tribunal considers that there are no errors in its original decision and as a result there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked for the reasons set out in this judgment. 2304797/2024Introduction
[2]The claimant has asked for reconsideration of my judgment on 23 July 2025 relating to the start date for her disability of a combination of stress, anxiety, depression, unstable angina and high blood pressure for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. I determined that this began on 1 November 2023, the claimant argues it began on an earlier date.[3]The claimant’s application is contained in a three page submission dated 3 August 2025, accompanied by a sixteen page mini bundle. This application has been received in time so I will consider it.[4]The respondents have by a letter dated 16 August 2025 set out reasons why they oppose the application and argue that my original decision should stand.[5]Having received written submissions from both parties and considered these, I have determined that a further hearing is not necessary. Application[6]The claimant argues that there is evidence that the claimant’s work related stress and anxiety had a substantial adverse effect on her day to day activities prior to 1 November 2023, contending that the evidence demonstrates this from as early as December 2021. The claimant says that Mr Costea did not know he could request the inclusion of this evidence in the hearing bundle. This evidence is now contained in the mini-bundle, which I have reviewed.[7]The respondents argue that the claimant is using the reconsideration application to have a second bite of the cherry by attempting to argue the same position again, using evidence which was available at the time of the hearing. They contend the claimant should have presented the evidence then by having it contained in the hearing bundle but did not do so. They also argue that the evidence would not have changed my decision if available in any event.Consideration
[8]The additional evidence provided by the claimant demonstrates that she considered she was experiencing an adverse reaction to work events prior to 1 November 2023, which she labelled as stress and anxiety. However, with limited exceptions, this is all her own assertion rather medical or third party evidence. 2304797/2024[9]The exceptions are two fitness to work notes; the first covers the period 3 to 19 December 2021 and refers to “stress related symptoms”. The second covers the period from 24 March 2022 to 10 April 2022 and refers to “work – related stress”.[10]I have considered whether this evidence would, when taken with the other available evidence at the hearing, have led me to conclude that the claimant had the claimed disability for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at an earlier date. My conclusion is that it does not. Intermittent absences due to stress do not lead me to conclude that the threshold for section 6 was crossed any earlier than 1 November 2023. As a result, I do not consider that my decision at the hearing was incorrect. It should therefore stand unamended.[11]As a result, I do not need to consider whether the additional evidence is inadmissible. However, for the record, the evidence provided was all available before the hearing and is not new evidence. I appreciate that Mr Costea is not legally trained but he now has some experience of the Tribunal’s workings from this and his own separate case against the respondents. I also consider the previous case management orders clear that the claimant could include in the bundle such evidence as she wished. If asked to consider this, I would therefore conclude that the reconsideration application is an attempt to relitigate my decision and should therefore fail in any event.[12]For these reasons, I consider that there were no errors in my original decision and accordingly there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[13]As a result, the Tribunal’s decision is that the claimant’s application dated 3 August 2025 for reconsideration of my judgment given on 23 July 2025 is refused. Approved by