Mr S Raja v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: 2400195/2024 and Others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2400195/2024, 6006861/2024, 6022834/2024
Between
Mr S RajaClaimantThe Chief Constable of Greater Manchester PoliceRespondent
Before
Employment Judge ShotterIn person for claimantMiss C Widdett (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 7 May 2025
JUDGMENT
[2]Case numbers: 2400195/2024, 6006861/2024 & 6022834/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr S Raja Respondent: The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Judgment on Reconsideration UPON APPLICATION made by the Claimant to reconsider the Judgment and Case Management Order sent to the parties on 15 October 2025 (“Order”), under rule 69 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 (“Rules”) the Claimant’s application for reconsideration is granted and the Judgment sent to the parties on 4 June 2025 is varied as highlighted in the Judgment.
REASONS
[1]The claimant’s application for a reconsideration is well-documented in numerous emails and attachments sent to the Tribunal. There was an issue concerning what claims the claimant had withdrawn at the preliminary hearing held on the 17 April 2025. I apologise to the parties for the time it has taken to re-consider my original decision to reject the reconsideration. This was the first occasion since receiving the claimant’s objections to the proposals in the 14 August 2025 letter from the Tribunal setting out how I intended to deal with the reconsideration, in his email sent on 19 August 2025. The parties were informed of the anticipated delay and reasons for it in correspondence.[2]As previously indicated to the parties in the letter from the Tribunal dated 10 October 2025, I have now set aside some time to review the lengthy correspondence largely sent by claimant to the Tribunal together with numerous attachments, and the respondent’s response to them in addition to revisiting all the pleadings and case management orders in the three claims being brought. It has taken time to read all the relevant documents, time which was not available to me before today.[3]With reference to the 14 August 2025 letter from the Tribunal I note the following was recorded: 1. “Judge Shotter intends to issue a Judgment in Case Number 12400195/2025 to the effect that the complaint brought under section 13 of discrimination on the ground of religion and belief is dismissed on withdrawal. This judgment will not affect any other complaint of discrimination on the ground of religion and belief brought by the claimant in his first two claims, namely, case number 6006861/2024 and 6022834/2024.” Having re-visited the Tribunal file and taken into account the difficulties and confusion at the preliminary hearing, I have not issued such a Judgment preferring to amend the existing Judgment to reflect all cases taking into account some of the claimant’s arguments when doing so. 2. “Given the effect of the claimant’s neurodiversity and the reasonable adjustments he requires from the Employment Tribunal, I have concluded that it is in the interests of justice to issue a second Judgment confirming the claimant’s withdrawal of his claim of discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief brought under section 13 only under Case Number 12400195/2024 but before doing so, give the claimant an opportunity to object…On this basis there is no requirement for me to grant the claimant’s application for a reconsideration and vary the Judgment in Case Number 2400195/2024.” The claimant did object, and having looked at the reconsideration a second time today did not issue a second Judgment taking the view that an amended Judgment would clarify the position more effectively for the parties.[4]In an email received on 19 August 2025 the claimant responded to the Tribunal’s letter dated 14 August 2025. I do not intend to set out the claimant’s response of 6-pages, and have concentrated on the relevant part. Ms Berry’s notes, which the claimant is relying on, are irrelevant and do not a formal record of the proceedings. The claimant wrote:(1) Could the tribunal make clerical corrections to the 14 August 2025 letter in paragraphs 1,4,5 & 6 as follows: Replace “12400195/2024” and “12400195/2025” with “2400195/2024.” The Amended Judgment recorders the correct case numbers.(2) I…agree…I was referring to Direct Religion and Belief being withdrawn from my first claim (2400195/2024).(3) the judgement should read as follows: ‘In case number 2400195/2024 the claim for direct discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief is dismissed on withdrawal. The remainder of that claim (2400195/2024) will progress namely Section19 Indirect Religion & Belief, Section 26 Harassment based on Race, Section 26 Harassment based on Disability, Sections 20 & 21 Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments, Section 15 Discrimination Arising from Disability. In case number 6022834/2024 the only claims that will progress to a final hearing are Sections 20 & 21 Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments and Section 27 victimisation on the grounds of disability.’[5]In an email dated 21 August 2028 the respondent confirmed the following: “…in respect of the letter of EJ Shotter dated the Respondent respectfully agrees that the reference to case “12400195/2024” need to be amended to the correct case number which is assumed to be 2400195/2024. The Respondent also agrees that the reference to ‘first two claims’ in paragraph 5 appears to be a slip of the pen.” The claimant’s claim forms[6]I have also revisited the claimant’s claim forms and the two case management orders following preliminary hearings held on the 11 June 2024 and 11 November 2024 to clarify the claimant’s pleaded case as follows: 1. The first claim and lead case number 2400195/2024 was received on the 14 January 2024. The claimant brings complaints of race discrimination, disability discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief. In the attached Particulars of Claim the claimant set out that his claims fell under sections 15, 19, 20-21 and 26 of the EQA. The claimant brought claims under section 13 and 19 in respect of discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief. 2. A case management hearing took place on the 23 May 2024 which confirmed the claimant was bringing complaints under sections 13, 15, 19, 20-21 and 26 of the EQA., At para 24 the complaints were set out as follows:21.1 Harassment related to race (sections 9 and 26);21.2 Direct religion or belief discrimination (sections 9 and 13);21.3 Indirect religion or belief discrimination (sections 9 and 19);21.4 Harassment related to disability (sections 6 and 26);21.5 Discrimination arising from disability (sections 6 and 15); and21.6 Failure to make reasonable adjustments discrimination (sections 6 and 20).[7]The second claim case number 6006861/2024 was received on the 26 July 2024. The claimant brings complaints of race discrimination, disability discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief. The claimant made no reference to the relevant section of the EQA and at the case management hearing held on the 11 November 2024 it was confirmed the claimant was bringing a claim of victimisation under section 27 of the EQA.[8]A third claim was received on the 21 December 2024. The claimant brings complaints brings complaints of race discrimination, disability discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, holiday pay and arrears of pay. The attached Grounds of claim confirmed the claimant was bringing claims under section 15, 20-21, 26 and 27.[9]The preliminary hearing before myself in relation to case number 6022834/2024 took place on the 17 April 2025 following which a Summary was sent to the parties on 4 June 2025 which included a lengthy list of issues highlighted and showing which complaints the claimant was no longer relying on. Judgment was also issued at the same time.[10]In an email dated 10 March 2025 the claimant withdrew a number of his claims as follows: In relation to claim No 6022834/2024 (3rd Claim)…I would like to withdraw most of the claim, and I have reduced and limited it to Victimisation and Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments, therefore I have amended the claim accordingly. Further to my previous communication dated 20/02/2025. In relation to case no 2400195/2024 (original Claim) regarding the claim for Direct Religion and Belief Discrimination I would like to reiterate that I would like to withdraw that from my claim… I invite the Tribunal to dismiss the following claims upon withdrawal: Claim No 6022834/2024 (3rd Claim) · S15 Discrimination Arising from Disability in its entirety. · S 26 Harassment in its entirety · S109 Liability of Employers and principles in its entirety · S111 Instructing Causing or Inducing Discrimination in its entirety. · S112 Aiding Contraventions in its entirety. · S 60 Enquiries about Disability and Health in its entirety. Claim No 2400195/2024 (Original Claim) · S13 Direct Discrimination on the Grounds of Religion and Belief[11]As recorded in the letter dated 14 August 2925 I took the view that there is confusion over whether the claimant was withdrawing all his claims relating to religion and belief set out in case numbers 2400195/2024, 6006861/2024 and 6022834/2024 at the preliminary hearing or whether the claimant was withdrawing his claim in case number 2400195/2024 only. The Judgment at paragraph 2 sent to the parties on the 7 May 2025 is limited to case number 2400195 reflecting the discussion held at the preliminary hearing on the 17 April 2025. Having listened to the recording of the Preliminary Hearing concluded that the information exchanged was confused and confusing. The hearing was by video link which did not help matters. I concluded, given the claimant’s neurodiversity, the Judgment should be looked at again taking into account that withdrawing any claim is a serious matter. . It is clear the claimant has withdrawn the direct discrimination claim on the grounds of religion and belief, and it is not clear that I can rely on the information provided at the preliminary hearing to dismiss the claims brought under sections 15 and 19 of the EQA. It is in the interests of justice to vary the Judgment to reflect this.[12]In order to assist the parties I have attempted to clarify the present position in the Amended Judgment relating to all claims dismissed and those going forward to a final hearing.
The law
[13]Rule 68 provides that reconsideration of a judgment will take place where the Employment Tribunal considers that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.[14]Rule 69 provides that applications for reconsiderations of judgments should be presented in writing within 14 days of the date on which the written record of the judgment was sent to the parties, and should set out why reconsideration is necessary. In this case, the Claimant submitted his application within the stipulated time period, and I was satisfied that his explanation of why he considered reconsideration was necessary had been set out.[15]Rule 70(1) notes that the Tribunal must consider any application made under Rule 69, and Rule 70(2) notes that if the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked then the application must be refused, and the Tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal. Alternatively, Rules 70(3) to (5) set out the process that is then to be followed for further consideration of the application.[16]In Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11, EAT, HHJ Eady QC (as she then was) indicated that the wording “necessary in the interests of justice” in Rule 701 allows employment tribunals a broad discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a judgment is appropriate in the circumstances. She confirmed that that discretion must be exercised judicially, “which means having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the review or reconsideration, but also to the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation”.[17]In conclusion, having reviewed the Judgment in the context of the Claimant's reconsideration applications, his disability, and the possible confusion at the CVP preliminary hearing I therefore granted the claimant’s application and have varied the Judgment taking into account the emails received by both parties when dealing with this matter. The Amended Judgment will be sent to the parties in a separate document. The Amended Judgment reflects amendments highlighted in black: “The judgment of the Tribunal is:
The law
[1]Case number 2400195/2024 will be joined with case number 6006861/2024 and 6022834/2024, and they will be heard together at the final hearing listed to start on 16 February 2026.[2]In case number 2400195/2024 the claims for discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief brought under section 13, [the disability related claim brought under section 15 and harassment brought under section 26] of the Equality Act 2010 are dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining claims brought under sections 19 (Indirect religion or belief discrimination), Harassment related to race and disability (sections 6, 9 and 26); Discrimination arising from disability (sections 6 and 15); and Failure to make reasonable adjustments discrimination (sections 6 and 20) will proceed to the final hearing.[3]In case number 6022834/2024 the claims brought under section 15 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010 are dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining claims proceeding to a final hearing are brought under section 20-21 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010.[4]In case number 6006861/2024 the claim of victimisation brought under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 will proceed to a final hearing.[5]The unlawful deduction of wages (arrears of pay) and claim for other payments are dismissed on withdrawal[6]The claim for accrued unpaid holiday pay brought under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 will proceed to the final hearing. 18. To assist the claimant if the black highlighted amendments were delated the Judgment would read: “The judgment of the Tribunal is:
The law
[1]Case number 2400195/2024 will be joined with case number 6006861/2024 and 6022834/2024, and they will be heard together at the final hearing listed to start on 16 February 2026.[2]In case number 2400195/2024 the claims for discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief brought under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 are dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining claims brought under sections 19 (Indirect religion or belief discrimination), Harassment related to race and disability (sections 6, 9 and 26); Discrimination arising from disability (sections 6 and 15); and Failure to make reasonable adjustments discrimination (sections 6 and 20) will proceed to the final hearing.[3]In case number 6022834/2024 the claims brought under section 15 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010 are dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining claims proceeding to a final hearing are brought under section 20-21 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010.[4]In case number 6006861/2024 the claim of victimisation brought under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 will proceed to a final hearing.[5]The unlawful deduction of wages (arrears of pay) and claim for other payments are dismissed on withdrawal[6]The claim for accrued unpaid holiday pay brought under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 will proceed to the final hearing.”