Mr H Stedman v Parkdean Resorts UK Ltd: 2500934/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2500934/2024
Between
Mr H StedmanClaimantParkdean Resorts UK LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Martin
Members
Mr S WykesMr S MoulesIn person for claimantMs H Hogpen (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 4 July 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s complaint of disability discrimination is not well founded and is hereby dismissed.[2]The claimant’s complaint of victimisation is not well founded and is hereby dismissed. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 1 March 2017
REASONS
[1]The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. Ms L Bolton, casting and delivery manager and Mr T Redhead, HR manager gave evidence on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal was provided with a bundle of documents marked Appendix 1.[2]The Tribunal was subsequently provided with a copy of the EAT decision in the case of Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd which was handed down on 16 June 2025 after the final hearing had finished. It reviewed that decision and allowed both parties to make submissions on that decision.
The Law
[3]Section 6 Equality Act 2010: A person (P) has a disability if —(a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and(b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Schedule 1 Part 1 sets out provisions regarding determining disability. In particular it notes that long term effects is where it has lasted for at least 12 months or is likely to last for at least 12 months. It also sets out the effect of medical treatment or measures: An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities if — (a) measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and (b) but for that, it would be likely to have that effect. Section 13(1) Equality Act 2010: A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic if A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. Section 27(1) Equality Act 2010: A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because — (a) B does a protected act, or (b) A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act. Section 27(2) Equality Act 2010: Each of the following is a protected act — (a) bringing proceedings under this Act. (b) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act.(c) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 2 March 2017(d) making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act. (3) Giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if the evidence or information is given, or the allegation is made, in bad faith. (4) This section applies only where the person subjected to a detriment is an individual. (5) The reference to contravening this Act includes a reference to committing a breach of an equality clause or rule. Section 136 Equality Act 2010: Burden of proof (1) This section applies to any proceedings relating to a contravention of this Act. (2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision. Section 212(1) of the Equality Act: substantial is more than minor or trivial.[4]The Tribunal was also referred to and took into account the case of Greater Manchester Police v Bailey [2017] EWCA Civ 425 and the case of Madarassey v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867 both of which deal with the burden of proof in discrimination and victimisation claims which held that the burden rests with the claimant in respect the discrimination and the detriment.[5]Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Limited [2013] ICR 591 where it was held that what a Tribunal has to consider in respect of adverse effect. It is adverse effect not upon his carrying out normal day to day activities but his ability to do so. The focus of the Tribunal must be on what the claimant maintains he cannot do as a result of his impairment. The Tribunal then has to assess whether or not that effect is or is not substantial.[6]The claimant referred to a number of cases which the Tribunal noted and took into account as follows: London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UK HL 43. Goodwin v Patents Office [1999] ICR 302. The claimant also referred to the case of St Helens MBC v Derbyshire and Others [2007] UK HL 16. The case of Jessemey v Rowstock Limited and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 185. Gallop v Newport City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1583. He had also previously preferred to the case of Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 1265. He also referred to a number of cases dealing with reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 3 March 2017 The claimant was led to a number of cases in evidence to the Tribunal which the Tribunal noted and which included J v DLA Piper UK LLP 210 IRLR 936, Heald v First Great Western Limited [2012], S v Dorset County Council [2009].
The Issues
[7]The issues are set out in the Order dated 20 November 2024 as follows: - Disability Whether the claimant had a disability as defined under section 6 of the Equality Act namely did his ASD/ADHD and/or ASD/autism? Did it have a long term and substantial adverse effect on his ability to undertake normal day to day activities. In respect of his complaint of direct disability discrimination: Whether the respondent: - Removed the claimant from its talent pool in around April 2024, and if so, was this in response to his email of 28 March 2024 requesting reasonable adjustments; Barred the claimant from applying for future roles for a 12 month period. Did the respondent treat the claimant in either of those ways less favourably than it treated or would treat a comparator who did not have his disability. The claimant relied on a hypothetical comparator without ASD/ADHD and/or ASD/autism. Was that treatment because of the claimant’s disability? What was the respondent’s explanation for the treatment. Can it show a nondiscriminatory reason for any proven treatment? Victimisation Did the claimant’s request for reasonable adjustments in his email of 28 March 2024 amount to a protected act? If so, did the respondent do the following things: - Remove the claimant from its talent pool in around April 2024, and if so, was this in response to the claimant’s email of 28 March 2024 requesting reasonable adjustments. Bar the claimant from applying for future roles for a 12 month period. Did the respondent do those two things and subject the claimant to a detriment because they believed that he had done or might do a protected act.[8]The Tribunal was not considering any claim for a failure to make reasonable adjustments on the basis that the claimant had never been employed by the respondents. Further the Tribunal was not considering any claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising from disability as the claimant had been unable to clarify the claim at the case management discussion in November 2024. He had been given the opportunity to provide further particulars of that claim if he intended to pursue it, which he did not do.[9]Therefore, the Tribunal was only concerned with the claim of direct disability discrimination and victimisation. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 4 March 2017
Findings of Fact
[10]The respondent is a holiday park company which is based in the Northeast of England although they have holiday parks all over the country.[11]The claimant is based in Lowestoft.[12]The claimant is an entertainer. He wanted to work in a holiday park as an entertainer. That appears to be the reason why he made several applications over a number of years to the respondent who own holiday parks all around the country. The claimant did work for another holiday park for a short period sometime between June to August 2023.[13]The claimant says that he has ADHD and autism. In October 2023 the claimant was referred privately and saw Professor Fox who diagnosed him with ADHD and autism. Professor Fox’s report is in the bundle before us to which we refer further in due course. The respondent does not accept that either of the claimant’s conditions amount to a disability.[14]The claimant brought a claim against another holiday park in August 2023. A preliminary hearing took place in those proceedings in November 2023 when the issue of disability was considered.[15]Professor Fox’s report dated 29 October 2023 is in the bundle at pages 116-118. It is notable that Professor Fox has provided no details of his qualifications or experience. Further it is noted that he does not appear to have had sight of any of the claimant’s medical history. The examination which he appears to have undertaken of the claimant was a number of psychometric tests which he refers at page 118 in the report. Professor Fox also noted in his report that the claimant was casually dressed, had good eye contact and reasonable rapport. He then went on to diagnose the claimant with Adult ADHD and ASD and suggested he would refer him for medication.[16]In his evidence, the claimant indicated that he did not take any medication for his conditions because of difficulties he had with anxiety.[17]Professor Fox also suggested that he would review the claimant in six weeks although there is no records provided of any further review by Professor Fox.[18]In the case of the claimant v Haven Leisure Limited, the Employment Tribunal in Norwich determined on 7 November 2023 that the claimant was not a disabled person. The impairments relied upon in that case were ADHD and autism and it was held that they did not have a substantial adverse effect on his normal day to day activities. It was noted that Employment Judge Postle, who determined the preliminary issue in that case, was provided with some of the claimant’s records and the report from Professor Fox. The Judgment is at page 120-124. Employment Judge Postle set out relevant details from the disability impact statement which the claimant provided in that case.[19]EJ Postle quoted parts of that disability impact statement in his judgement. He noted that the claimant suggested that he struggled to form friendships, struggled when breakups happened and struggled with rejection. In regards shopping, the claimant said he could shop for himself but struggles to remember things without lists. He also said that he could no longer concentrate for long periods of time when reading, writing or even watching a long documentary or movie. He also said he could not face using public transport if its overcrowded and that he cannot drive due to his lack of focus. He went on to say that he did not take part in social 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 5 March 2017 activities often due to anxiety although when he is performing, he is very sociable. He further said he struggles to interact with work related activities and communicate with colleagues but that he masks his disabilities.[20]In that case, the claimant confirmed, as indeed he did in his evidence to this Tribunal, that he had obtained the equivalent at 3 A*s at A level and had undertaken a business studies degree. He also conceded in the earlier proceedings that he could not drive because he had not taken his driving test. In his evidence to that Tribunal, he accepted that he did have friends, but it took him longer to form friendships. He said he was shy other than when he is performing. He also confirmed he was not taking any medication but was receiving some therapy. Employment Judge Postle concluded in that case that the claimant had overstated the position and taking all the factors into account that the conditions did not have a substantial impact on the claimant’s normal day to day activities.[21]This Tribunal acknowledges that that case is not binding on us, However, it is or could be persuasive.[22]The claimant stated in his evidence before this Tribunal that he had appealed against the decision which seems to be an appeal based on perversity. He indicated that the appeal was proceeding. This Tribunal subsequently reviewed the appeal decision as referred to above.[23]In this case the claimant provided a disability impact statement which is at pages 125-127 of the bundle. He again relies on the report from Professor Fox and the psychometric tests undertaken by him. We note that the EAT indicate that a diagnosis of autism may be an indicator of a substantial adverse effect, but we do not consider without more information it would be sufficient in itself.[24]At pages 125- 126 of the disability statement, the claimant sets out the impact on his day-to-day activities. The information provided by him is limited. It consists of five paragraphs with one or two sentences under each of those paragraphs. The entire provisions are no more than half a page. Most significantly, it includes no examples in respect of any of those five activities on the impact on the claimant’s normal day to day activities.[25]The five activities referred to are:- firstly: - Social interactions. Again he refers to being unable to form meaningful relationships and maintain friendships but cited no specific examples. Secondly, he relies on executive functioning and planning and refers to organising, focusing on tasks and time management. Thirdly, the claimant relies on sensory overload and emotional regulation indicating he found it difficult to function in busy or high stress environments that may result in frustration, anxiety, and outbursts. When questioned about this he did accept that he worked with children and referred to an incident when he was working at children’s parties with 35 10-year-olds all eating ice cream and acknowledged that there was a lot of noise and bright lights in the type of work he was doing. Fourthly he referred to workplace challenges and social interactions. Lastly, he referred to daily living tasks around personal care, household chores and financial responsibilities. Interestingly before this tribunal he made no reference to shopping which he had relied on in the earlier case. When cross examined by the respondent’s representative, he suggested that his mother had to remind him to undertake personal hygiene and get dressed although Professor Fox made no negative comment about the claimant’s presentation. Other than that, the claimant did not give a single example of any impact for any of these factors on his normal day to day activities. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 6 March 2017[26]In his disability impact statement and his evidence before this Tribunal, the claimant confirmed that he was not taking any medication for either condition and that he had coping strategies in place which were enabling him to function. He also indicated he was awaiting a diagnosis through NHS but had not yet received that diagnosis but may receive treatment then from the NHS. (page 126 of the bundle).[27]This Tribunal acknowledges that we are not considering what the claimant can do but what he cannot do. However, from our own observations, during the course of these proceedings, we noted that the claimant had presented a very detailed claim form. He did not struggle at all to answer questions on crossexamination or indeed struggle to cross-examine witness. He suggested producing written submissions overnight on the Law and evidence which he then proceeded to do.[28]The claimant produced no medical or GP records to this Tribunal. The only medical evidence which was produced was that from Professor Fox who was not called to give evidence. There would have been a number of questions we would wish to have put to Professor Fox if he had attended to give evidence.[29]What is significant is that in the disability impact statement he presented in this hearing he does not refer to most of the examples which he used in the first hearing in November 2023. He suggested when questioned about it that the impact on him had changed and that he was simply focusing on other impacts on him. In these proceedings he has provided less examples than he provided in the first case in November 2023.[30]Further, the five categories which he has identified about having an impact on for day to day activities are those well known to have an impact on people with the conditions upon which he is relying. The information he has provided in his disability impact statement reads like a list of those functions which generally impact on people with those conditions as opposed to the claimant providing anything in the way of specific impact on himself in relation to those conditions.[31]In 2017 the claimant applied for a role which appears to have been his first application to the respondents for a position at Weeley Bridge in Essex. However, he failed to start the role and failed to communicate with the team about his non attendance. In his evidence the claimant said he did not attend because he was waiting to hear about training and that no one had contacted him about training for the role.[32]In 2019 the claimant was invited to attend a casting tour in Scotland and Cornwall. The respondent says that despite confirming his attendance, the claimant again failed to attend the tour and failed to inform the team about his non-attendance.[33]In 2019 the claimant was offered a role at Coopers Beach but turned it down due to university commitments. The claimant in his evidence said he could not recall the Coopers Beach position. He said he was not able to find any documents about it, although he did accept that he was at university during that period and probably would have only been able to do part of the season.[34]In 2022 the claimant was due to attend an audition event. He confirmed his attendance but withdrew the day prior to the event asking to do the audition online instead. The claimant explained that his sister had had to go to A&E and was potentially contagious. He said in his evidence that he was worried that he would 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 7 March 2017 infect people and therefore felt he could not attend the audition and requested it be done online instead (pages 64 to 65).[35]In 2023 the claimant again confirmed attendance at another audition event this time in Birmingham but again he did not attend. The respondent said that the claimant indicated that he had problems with the trains (pages 66 to 67). The respondents had told him that all the trains were working but the claimant seemed to think that he would not be able to arrive in time and did not attend.[36]In February 2023 the claimant applied for an entertainment role at Cresswell Towers in Northumberland. (Page 74 of the bundle). Mr Keeble, the casting and delivery manager and Ms Bolton interviewed the claimant by Teams for that role. The claimant could not recall being interviewed by Ms Bolton for the interview. In his evidence he accepted she may have been part of the call but he thought it was someone else. In the interview the claimant disclosed that he considered that he had ADHD and autism and was looking to get a diagnosis. The claimant did not suggest any reasonable adjustments that he required at that stage.[37]The claimant was offered the role at Cresswell Towers. Two days later he turned the role down on the basis that he was waiting for an appointment at some stage regarding his diagnosis of ADHD/autism and wanted to remain local and did not want to travel too far from home. He sent an email on 19 February (pages 79-82 of the bundle). He then subsequently emailed asking if he could be considered for another park. No other parks were available.[38]The claimant then asked the respondent if he could be placed at Cresswell Towers for a period and then move to another site. He was reminded that he had already turned the position down. The respondent advised the claimant that they needed somebody for the whole season and told him that they would put him back on the waiting list. He asked that he be put on the list for sites closer to his home (pages 79-82).[39]In April 2023 the claimant complained about not receiving a response to his emails and again asked about any positions in parks closer to his home (page 147 of the bundle). The respondent replied informing him that they are not ignoring his emails. They said that they have a great deal of emails to go through and reminded him that he had been offered a position a few months earlier but that he did not think it fit in with his needs to be closer to his doctors and at present they did not have any roles for him (page 147 of the bundle).[40]It appears that during June to August 2023 the claimant was working for another leisure park - Haven. It appears that he was dismissed by that organisation and issued proceedings against them claiming disability discrimination. A preliminary hearing took place in relation to those proceedings as referred to above in November 2023.[41]On 10 December 2023, the claimant wrote again to the respondents raising concerns about a lack of response and about blocking him from social media and casting opportunities. He suggested in that email his disappointment about the lack of communication and opportunities being offered to him. He was also concerned that that might be due to him raising issues after disclosing a disability specifically ADHD and autism. He suggested that since then there had been a notable decline in communication, blocking social media and blocking any opportunities (page 150). 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 8 March 2017[42]On 11 December 2023 Liam J Beck responded to the claimant’s email and explained that he oversaw entertainment operations. He explained that the respondent was an equal opportunities employer and referred to several team members working within the organisation who live with various disabilities. He also noted that the claimant had been offered the role at Cresswell Towers but had then declined it and had then suggested he could only work within a certain radius of his home. Mr Beck then explained that there were no positions. He also explained that the organisation could not respond to all the numerous applications which they received. He also raised with the claimant that he did not appear to have applied for the 2024 season castings which have been taking place recently. Mr Beck also dealt with the issue about social media and indicated that he had checked and the claimant had not been blocked from any social media (page 149-150 of the bundle).[43]On 11 December 2023, the claimant responded saying that he was struggling to apply for positions and asked the respondents to investigate it. He also said that he would like to still be considered for the 2024 season (page 148-149).[44]Mr Beck then responded on the same day explaining that he could not understand how the claimant was blocked from searching for any positions on social media. He was not aware of any difficulties and provided details of an Instagram account. He also advised the claimant that there was a casting date in early January namely on 5 January 2024 in Birmingham. He indicated the roles which were available and indicated that he was not aware of the claimant’s specific skill set but that he was happy for him to attend. Mr Beck also explained that, due to the number of applications and volumes of enquiries/applications, the respondents could not reply with individual updates to people. He suggested the claimant keep an eye on the Instagram page (page 148).[45]The claimant did not respond until 2 January 2024 when he questioned whether it was worth him attending the audition on 5 January. He suggested that it seemed the respondent was only looking for hosts and entertainment managers for smaller activity parks and was not sure if he could work on a small activity park. He therefore asked whether it was worth him auditioning (page 154 of the bundle). The claimant then sent a further email on 3 January chasing his earlier email of the day before so he could plan travel (page 148).[46]In his evidence to the Tribunal the claimant said that he did not think the roles which were being advertised were suitable for him. During her evidence, Ms Bolton agreed that it seemed that those roles were probably not suitable for the claimant.[47]On 5 January 2024, namely on the day of the auditions, the claimant then sent a further email in the evening to complain that his interest in the audition had been ignored and that no one had responded to his emails. He suggested that that was due to him mentioning his disabilities at the interview. He goes on to say that he would be interested in a role and was happy to travel (page 153 of the bundle).[48]On 6 January 2025, the respondent’s reply to the claimant. They explain that they have been on the road for the auditions and have had limited access to emails. They also point out to the claimant that he was offered a job after he disclosed that he had a potential disability and that they have troopers with disabilities. They also explained to the claimant that he had been invited to attend the casting day in Birmingham, and it had been advertised on all the social media platforms, 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 9 March 2017 they told him that they that currently do not have any roles which they are recruiting to (page 152-153 of the bundle).[49]In his evidence to the Tribunal the claimant said that he felt that the respondents had invited him to an audition when it was clear that the roles would not be suitable for him and that he was unhappy that the respondents had not responded to him. In her evidence, Ms Bolton said that the respondents had not been able to respond to the claimant and that this had nothing to do with the claimant raising issues about disability. Ms Bolton expressed frustration at the number of emails which the claimant was sending at this stage and decided to speak to the claimant to discuss the matter and provide reassurance to him.[50]On 6 January 2024 Ms Bolton telephoned the claimant. Her account of that telephone call is set out at paragraph 17 of her witness statement. The claimant does not refer to that telephone call in his witness statement at all. He does not dispute that the telephone call took place. In her evidence, Ms Bolton seemed to take the claimant’s comments regarding the respondent treating him differently because he disclosed his disability quite personally. It seemed that she was getting frustrated with the numerous emails going backwards and forwards to the claimant. She said that she was why she therefore decided to try and call him to try and clarify the position.[51]In her evidence, Ms Bolton said that in that telephone call she outlined the casting process and how they looked at reviewing each candidate and where they could be assigned. She indicated that a smaller park may be a good starting point for the claimant with his level of experience and skill set. She also said that she discussed other matters around compatibility/suitability with roles and accommodation. She said that she also expressed some concern with the claimant about the number of emails and contact with the organisation. She said in evidence that she hoped that this call would reduce the contact from him as the team were finding it difficult to manage. Ms Bolton said that she felt the conversation went well and that the claimant understood the position. She said that he thanked her for the call and for being transparent with him.[52]Ms Bolton said that she telephoned the claimant to explain the process to him and discourage him from continuing the frequent communication and emails. In her evidence she said she thought it was a positive telephone call. The claimant did not dispute the call took place nor Ms Bolton’s version of the call. He said that he hoped that he would be able to find a position after that call.[53]In February 2024, the claimant sent an email to the casting team with an updated CV (page 156 of the bundle). In cross-examination Ms Bolton accepted that in itself was acceptable.[54]In March 2024, the claimant then started to email the respondents again. And the frequent communication recommenced.[55]On 27 March 2024, the claimant sent an email to the casting team checking whether he was in or whether he needed to apply to be in the talent pool for the 2024 season. He outlined the localities he may consider which were local to him (page 160-161).[56]The respondents responded to that email on the same day indicating, as discussed with Ms Bolton, that they had all his details on the system and that they were up to date. Ms Bolton accepted in evidence that the email in itself was not inappropriate but said it was another example of yet more communication 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 10 March 2017 commencing from the claimant. She said she had hoped that after the telephone call with the claimant at the beginning of January, he would desist from sending these types of emails.[57]Ms Bolton then went on to say that, on 27 March 2024, there was a meeting at the Exeter office with herself, Mr Beck and Mr Keeble who were the team largely dealing with the recruitment process for entertainers. She said that, at that meeting, a discussion took place about the claimant’s history of unreliability and his frequent contact with the casting team. They agreed that they needed to address this as they were concerned that the communications were now becoming overwhelming to deal with. Ms Bolton said that, having discussed the concerns the view was that the claimant would not be a suitable candidate at the present time because of the number of previous occasions when he had not attended, cancelled or turned down offers and they did not think that they should progress his applications for the 2024 season due to his past unreliability and were concerned that the communication from him was starting again. Ms Bolton said that at the end of the meeting they agreed that Mr Beck would contact HR to take advice about a decision not to progress the claimant’s application and that they would then communicate that decision to him.[58]On 28 March 2024 the claimant then sent a further email. He indicated that he had consulted his doctor with regards to accommodations and set out what he called his key requests which he set out as:- regular breaks in the role to manage sensory sensitivities and ADHD related challenges; personalised learning methods such as individualised training sessions and access to rehearsal recordings to show content effectively; training and awareness programmes for colleagues to understand neurodiversity; and solo accommodation due to specific needs related to autism and ADHD. He indicated that he wanted them to take note of the requests and indicated that he hoped that it would open up more options not in a confined part of the country. In his evidence the claimant said he was in effect asking for reasonable adjustments but was also indicating that he could work in a wider area.[59]In her evidence Ms Bolton said that the respondent employed a large number of neurodiverse members of staff. She said that 30 of their 66 parks had neurodivergent people working on them. In her evidence, Ms Bolton also said that the respondent put adjustments in place for all of those employees.[60]Ms Bolton went on to say in her evidence that the adjustments which the claimant was suggesting were either already in place or the type of adjustments which the respondent could easily accommodate. She said that they provided regular breaks in the rota and had training and awareness programmes. She talked about meetings at parks where they talked about neurodiversity which was then shared with all members of the team. She also said that they accommodated solo accommodation for specific needs. She also indicated that the respondent provided different learning methods. She said that none of those adjustments could not or had not been accommodated by the respondents for employees who they employed in their parks.[61]The claimant then sent a further email on 29 March, namely the morning after asking whether the update from the doctor had been updated on the system. He said that it provided 66 different park options as opposed to ten. That email is at page 159 of the bundle. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 11 March 2017[62]By this stage the claimant had then sent three emails in a period of three days to the respondents.[63]After receipt of that email there was an internal email where were concerns expressed about what else they could do with the claimant. They had already explained that he was in the pool for jobs to him. (page 159 of the bundle).[64]There was then internal email communication about the claimant. Mr Beck indicated that he thought that they needed to be honest with the claimant and make it clear that he was no longer in the pool and would not be considered for any roles with the respondents. He noted that the claimant did not accept rejection easily. He then went on to say that in the meantime he would speak to HR and ask for some background with regard to all the contact with the claimant and positions offered and rejected in the past. He said he would get it sorted when everyone was back in the office (page 158-159). Ms Bolton was not in the office after the meeting of 27 March until a few days later.[65]Ms Bolton then responded to Mr Beck on 31 March setting out her dealings with the claimant. She refers to the telephone call that she made with the claimant whereby she thought she had set out the position clearly to him and that he understood the position, but she said that, although he had stopped for a short period, he has again started to send frequent emails to the team. She went on to say that she thought that HR guidance should be able to clarify that basically he is not successful. She was concerned that otherwise he would not go away.[66]On 31 March 2024, the claimant sent a further email to the casting team indicating that he was now optimistic with the recent changes that would allow him to work anywhere in the country and indicated when he was available for interview (page 91 of the bundle).[67]On 2 April 2024 Mr Beck sent an email to the claimant in which he stated a decision had been made not to progress his application to the next stage indicating that the company would be removing him from the talent pool. He referred to the various opportunities which had been offered to the claimant in the past and invitations to auditions, but that on each occasion there had been reasons why the claimant could not attend and caused inconvenience to the casting team. He referred to having sought advice from HR and that the decision was taken to end the application process at this stage. He referred to the comments regarding reasonable adjustments and explained that the respondent had made such adjustments on several occasions for current team members and, if the claimant was successful at any stage, they could be accommodated, so it was not a factor in the decision. (page 90 of the bundle).[68]On 2 April 2024, the claimant responded to Mr Beck’s email. He noted the thoughtful consideration about reasonable adjustments and that the efforts to ensuring inclusivity had not gone unnoticed. He referred to scheduling constraints about obtaining his psychologist appointments and that he had sought advice from his doctor in recent days to ensure that he could work anywhere in the Country. He indicated that he understood there were locations in other parts of the Country, so he had tried to keep the respondent updated on reasonable adjustments. (page 90).[69]In his evidence to the Tribunal was not clear when or if the claimant had been to see his doctor to obtain any further information. There was no reference in his witness statement to him having visited his doctor at the end of March 2024 nor 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 12 March 2017 have any medical records been produced showing that he had visited his doctor at that time.[70]On 2 April 2024, the claimant sent a further email to the respondents which is at pages 89-90 of the bundle to indicate that he wanted to include Becky Cane in the email exchange. He indicated that when he accepted the role at Weeley Bridge that he did not receive the training information, rather he received a text from a manager asking about where he was. He also says that when he was offered the role in Cresswell Towers he suggested he had not discussed his reasonable adjustments. He then went on to say that he had subsequently been officially diagnosed and then went on to talk about solo accommodation. He then suggested that now he had asked for specific adjustments which the respondents could not adhere to there were no jobs suitable which he suggested was discrimination.[71]On 2 April 2024 Mr Beck responded to the claimant’s emails. He apologised if the claimant was not provided with sufficient information or details regarding previous employment offers. He noted that the correspondence dates back many years. He also makes it clear that the claimant had pre-declared his diagnosis and that the decision was not based on his condition, but that the respondent had experienced several examples of the claimant failing to progress with opportunities presented to him. He then went on to say that, so there is no misunderstandings, the respondents will not be considering him for any future employment with the respondents and asked him to refrain from submitting further applications (page 88).[72]It was fair to say that the subsequent email of 2 April by Mr Beck seems on the face of it to have gone further than the initial email when the claimant was told that his application for the current 2024 season was not progressing. The subsequent email on the same day suggests that the claimant was not going to be considered for any future employment with the respondent.[73]The claimant then sent an email to the respondents on 3 April 2024 raising concerns about the handling of his application and alleging discrimination under the Equality Act in particular with regard to reasonable adjustments. He also raised concerns about the respondents imposing a ban preventing him from being considered for any future roles. He said that amounted to direct and indirect discrimination and victimisation. He suggested that the ban followed a request for reasonable adjustments (page 93-94 of the bundle). He then followed that email up with another one as he said received an out of office from the person to whom he had originally sent the email.[74]The respondent arranged for the HR team to deal with the matter as a complaint. Mr Redhead was asked to investigate the complaint.[75]Mr Redhead said that he spoke to Mr Beck who told him about the meeting on 27 March with Ms Bolton. Mr Redhead said in evidence that Mr Beck had confirmed that it was at the meeting on 27 March they had decided not to progress the claimant’s application because of his previous and repeated instances of unreliable behaviour and communication.[76]Mr Redhead said in evidence that he had also discussed with Mr Beck the request for reasonable adjustments which Mr Beck had said would be considered if the claimant was successful in obtaining a role. Mr Redhead said that he was not aware that any request had been made for adjustments to be made at the 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 13 March 2017 application or interview stage. In his evidence to the Tribunal the claimant confirmed that he had never requested adjustments for either the application or interview stage.[77]Mr Redhead said that he had had a discussion with Mr Beck about whether the claimant had been banned from applying for future roles. Mr Beck indicated that he had asked the claimant not to make any applications or send any emails expressing interest in roles to the casting team because of the high volume of emails which were being sent. Mr Beck had told him that he had sought advice from Becky Cane in the HR team and that Ms Cane had confirmed the advice. Mr Redhead confirmed that Mr Beck had indicated that the decision was being made because the claimant was not attending auditions or interviews and failing to start employment and because he was sending a high volume of emails to the team’s email address.[78]On 9 April 2024, the claimant sent a further email asking about local roles (page 96-97) and asked if he could be unbanned. He referred to a role at Vauxhall.[79]Mr Redhead responded to the claimant’s complaint. He explained that he had undertaken an investigation into the matter and that the claimant’s application to join the trooper team has not been progressed on this occasion for the reasons set out in Mr Beck’s email of 2 April 2024. In summary, because the claimant had failed on multiple occasions to either commence employment with the respondents or attend casting days. He stated that it did not mean that any future applications would not be considered. He further stated that the claimant had not been discriminated against nor victimised and made it clear that the respondent had current team members who had reasonable adjustments in place. He also said that the respondent would be sure to accommodate any reasonable adjustments outlined in previous emails if the claimant was successful in employment with the respondents (page 100).[80]The claimant then emailed Mr Redhead on 10 April 2024. He suggested that the decision was because of discrimination and reasonable adjustments. He indicated that he was part of the pool for certain parks prior to being removed indefinitely and thereafter permanently banned. He suggested in the email that the reason for the ban was because he had disclosed his disabilities and asked for reasonable adjustments. He said that he wasn’t diagnosed until last year and suggested that the ban related to his diagnosis and request for reasonable adjustments. He went on to address the opportunities and offers previously made to him.[81]In his email on 10 April 2024, the claimant indicated that there was a discrepancy between Mr Beck’s statement saying that the claimant was not allowed to apply for future applications and Mr Redhead’s comment that he could be considered for future applications. He sought clarification about the position regarding future applications (page 99). He then follows up that email on 12 April stating that Mr Redhead’s email and Mr Beck’s email are contradictory (page 98).[82]On 19 April 2024 the claimant emailed the respondents again (page 102). On the same date Ms Leggatt from the respondent company simply replies to the claimant suggesting that he apply for any roles that he might be interested online (page 102). 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 14 March 2017[83]On 24 April 2024 Mr Redhead replies to the claimant by email and apologies for the delay in responding. He makes it clear that the claimant’s unreliability and pattern of non-attendance are the reason why he is not being considered for opportunities with the respondents and that it has nothing to do with the claimant’s medical condition or disability. He states it is purely based on the claimant’s unreliability. He also goes on to say that any future applications may be considered and there is no ban on making applications in future (pages 103-104).[84]On the same date 24 April 2024, the claimant sends a further email to Mr Redhead. In that email he comments on the issues raised about his unreliability and patterns of non-attendance. He also goes on to comment about his diagnosis of autism and ADHD and asks for a review of the situation and then says he will be escalating the matter to ACAS. He suggests that everything stems from asking about adjustments (page 103).[85]The claimant then writes to the respondents further on 29 April (page 105). He writes again on 29 April chasing whether he can apply for trooper roles (page 106). Mr Redhead replies on 29 April making it clear that the reason for his applications not being progressed have been explained to him and that there would be no further review (page 106).[86]On 30 April 2024 and 2 May 2024, the claimant writes again to the casting team asking for reinstatement to the talent pool. He asks to be reconsidered for a trooper position and, if not, he wants the reasons (pages 108-109).[87]On 2 May 2024 the casting team respond to him. Mr Beck confirms that the matter has been considered with the HR team and that the reasons have been explained to him. He confirms that claimant will not be placed in the talent pool at this time. He states he is closing the matter (page 108).[88]On the same date 2 May2024, the claimant writes again to Mr Beck asking at what point he would be able to apply for a trooper position. He then suggests that the reason his previous employment offers did not work were predominantly caused by autistic and ADHD traits without a diagnosis. He says he was removed from the talent pool for requesting reasonable adjustments. He asks if it is a lifetime ban (page 107).[89]On 2 May 2024, Mr Beck responds to the claimant to clarify that it is not due to reasonable adjustments requests that he is not being considered. He reiterates that it is because of his unreliability as previously explained. He asks the claimant to refrain from making any applications for the next 12 months and that no further emails from him will be responded to and that the decision is final (page 106- 107).[90]In his evidence Mr Redhead suggested that he was trying to clarify the position with regard to the period for which the claimant was not to be considered for any positions. However, on the face of it, the situation was not made particularly clear by either him or Mr Beck albeit that it was quite clear that they both attempted at times during the voluminous email correspondence from the claimant over that period to attempt to clarify the position. However, it is not clear they were particularly successful in clarifying the situation.[91]On cross-examination the claimant accepted that he had obtained 3 A* and a 2- 2 degree. He suggested that the way he had studied for his degree was studying chunks of material at a time so he could process it. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 15 March 2017[92]Mr Beck did not attend to give evidence to this Tribunal. He has apparently left the respondent organisation and is working abroad Submissions[93]The claimant, as indicated above, prepared written submissions which he went through orally.[94]The respondent’s representatives submitted that the claimant did not have a disability and outlined her reasons. She also submitted that the reason why the claimant was being removed from the talent pool and/or banned for 12 months was not due to his disability or because he had raised the issue about his disability. She submitted that it was due to his unreliability and his endless email communication with the respondent. She reminded the Tribunal that this was a prospective employee who had been in communication at times relentlessly over period of time seven years with the respondent and had attended auditions ot taken up two separate offers of employment. She suggested that the 12 month ban was really what had imposed in the first instance and a mere extension of that. In any event, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the reason for the respondent’s actions had nothing to with the claimant’s medical condition and outlined the reasons why she said it was unrelated. She also submitted that although the email of 28 March 2024 could amount to a protected disclosure that the claimant had not suffered a detriment as a result thereof not least because the decision was made before receipt of that email.[95]Both parties referred to various caselaw as indicated above.
Conclusions
[96]The Tribunal reminded itself that the burden is on the claimant to prove firstly that he had a disability and secondly to prove the reason for any treatment was due to his disability or that he done a protected act.[97]This Tribunal accepts that the claimant may have a mental impairment of ADHD/autism. It notes that that is a diagnosis made by Professor Fox and we note that diagnosis may indicate a substantial adverse effect but without more evidence that diagnosis is not sufficient to meet the definition of disability under the Act. Professor Fox did not attend the hearing to give evidence and the Tribunal would have welcomed the opportunity to ask him questions so that we could properly consider whether these conditions had an adverse effect on the claimant.[98]This Tribunal does not find that the claimant satisfies the definition of disability in relation to either of those conditions as defined under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.[99]The Tribunal has taken note of the decision made in November 2023. That decision is not binding on this Tribunal. It is however persuasive. The Employment Judge who heard that case had some medical records to which this Tribunal did not have access. It also had the report from Professor Fox. The Tribunal has also taken note of the successful appeal against that decision, which has remitted the case back to a different Tribunal to determine the issue of disability in that case.[100]In this case the claimant has produced a disability impact statement. The disability impact produced by the claimant is extremely limited. It sets out what he describes as five separate impacts. However, they appear to be mere generic 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 16 March 2017 impacts that one would normally associate with somebody with those conditions. What the claimant fails to do entirely is provide any specific examples of the impact of any of those conditions on his normal day to day activities. The disability impact statement and his evidence to this Tribunal was wholly lacking in any particulars upon which this Tribunal could conclude that the claimant had a disability because of those conditions namely that it had a long term or substantial adverse effect on his normal day to day activities.[101]It is quite clear that the claimant is highly intelligent. He was able to obtain the equivalent of 3 A*s at A Level and a degree. He prepared questions on crossexamination and was able to answer questions put to him on cross-examination. He was also able to produce written submissions overnight (which solicitors and counsel are often unable to produce) identifying the law and evidence he relied on. This dictates against any impact on his executive functioning of which he failed to provide any examples of what he cannot do.[102]Although he suggested there was an impact on his daily living, he did not cite any examples other than when questioned about it on cross-examination he suggested that he might have to be reminded by his mother to undertake personal hygiene which contrasts with Professor Fox’s observations about his appearance. Although we note and echo the EAT’s comments in the recent case concerning this claimant that one example may be sufficient for a substantial adverse effect, the one example given by the claimant in this case on cross examination as referred to above, would not amount to a substantial adverse effect[103]He also talked about problems with sensory overload yet he himself indicated that part of his role as an entertainer was undertaking large children’s parties dealing with noisy children. He accepted that there might well be noise and bright lights with the role that he undertook.[104]Interestingly he did not rely upon any of the examples he had given in the first hearing in November 2023 before Employment Judge Postle as having an impact on his ability to undertake normal day to day activities now. There was no reference to his use of public transport. At the previous hearing, It was accepted by him that although he said there was an impact on his driving, he accepted he could not actually drive. He also made no reference in that case to impact on shopping around lists. Bearing in mind that Employment Judge Postle took the view that the claimant had overstated the position, this Tribunal can only conclude that the reason why the claimant did not suggest that any of those matters previously relied on had an impact on him was because he had already had a finding against him in that regard.[105]The Tribunal accepts that, although we comment at times on what the claimant can do, our focus must be on what he cannot do. However, that is the difficulty this Tribunal found itself in because the claimant failed in his evidence to provide any real examples of the impact of his condition on his normal day to day activities.[106]This Tribunal principally finds that the claimant, who has the burden of proof to show he has a disability and who is someone who has already produced a disability impact statement, failed to provide any specific examples of the impact that any of his conditions has on his ability to undertake normal day to day activities. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 17 March 2017[107]For those reasons this Tribunal finds that the claimant is not disabled as defined under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.[108]The Tribunal nevertheless went on to consider the claim of direct disability discrimination.[109]This Tribunal finds that the respondent did remove the claimant from its talent pool in or around April 2024. It also accepts that the respondent did bar the claimant from applying for future roles for a 12 month period.[110]However, this Tribunal does not find the reason for that treatment was because of the claimant’s disability in relation to either of those matters for the following reasons.[111]Firstly, the initial decision to remove the claimant from its talent pool was made on 27 March 2024. We accept Ms Bolton’s evidence that there was a meeting at which it was decided that the claimant would not be considered for future applications at that stage. Her evidence is supported by the evidence of Mr Redhead in relation to what he was told by Mr Beck. This evidence is consistent with all the background evidence in this case. We note her evidence about the discussion with the claimant 6 January was not disputed by the claimant and we accept that she believed that the claimant would stop communicating with the respondent in the way he had done so over many years. However, he continued to do so. The 27 March was his first email of a series of three / four emails towards the end of March 2024. It was quite clear that, by 27 March, the respondent having had that telephone discussion in January were concerned as to what approach to take after Ms Bolton had tried to resolve the matter at that stage. It was quite clear that the respondent was getting exasperated with the claimant who had been applying for and/or turning down roles for almost seven years and further engaged at times in relentless email communication with the respondent. It must be noted that the claimant was not an employee nor never had been but was merely an applicant for employment during this entire period. The claimant’s further emails of 28 and 29 March reinforced the respondent’s view that they needed to take action. At that stage they had received three emails in three days from the claimant. It was quite clear that they took the view that action needed to be taken to prevent the claimant from continuing in this manner.[112]Secondly, we note that the respondent had already been told back in February 2023 by the claimant at interview that he believed himself to have ADHD and autism and offered him employment. That step is entirely contrary to the claimant’s case but is entirely consistent with the fact that the respondent had no concerns whatsoever about employing the claimant because of his neurodiversity.[113]Finally, we note and accept with Ms Bolton’s evidence that the respondent employed neurodivergent people in almost half of their 66 parks and that they made the type of adjustments for employees which that the claimant requested in his email of 28 March 2024. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the respondent was clearly able to adjustments for neurodiverse employees so the claimant’s suggestion that this was the reason they did not employ him is inconsistent with that evidence. The Tribunal considers that it is inconceivable that the reason the respondent decided to remove him from the talent pool or indeed ban him for 12 months is because of either his assertion that he had a disability or because he had asked for reasonable adjustments. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 18 March 2017[114]This tribunal also notes that 28 March 2024 was not the first time the claimant asserted he was being differently because of his disability. He made those assertions in December and January when he suggested that the respondent were not responding to his emails which in fact was not the case at all. He was complaining because they did not respond immediately. The Tribunal accepts the reasons given by the respondent at that time namely that the reasons were for business reasons around the number of applications/ emails received and that fact they were out of the office at an audition as the claimant was well aware at that time.[115]Accordingly, this Tribunal accepts the respondent’s evidence that the reason why the claimant was removed from the talent pool from April 2024 and banned for 12 months was not due to his disability but because of his unreliability and because of his relentless email communication.[116]This Tribunal finds that the email of 28 March 2024 could amount to a protected act under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.[117]The Tribunal finds, as indicated above, that the reason why the claimant was removed from the talent pool in April 2024 is for the reasons referred to above and is not because the claimant had done or might do a protected act.[118]The Tribunal does not accept the respondent’s representative assertion that the 12 month ban is effectively the same as his removal from the 2024 talent pool because it would cover the following year if it was for 12 months. The Tribunal does find that the emails around the period of the claimant’s ban were contradictory. We accept that the respondent tried to clear up the misunderstanding, but were unclear in their explanations and we do understand why the claimant may have wanted to clarify the position, but it did not require the number of emails which he sent during April and May 2024.[119]A minority of the members of the panel find that the claimant being barred from applying for future roles for 12 months, by Mr Beck on behalf of the Respondent, was because the claimant had done the protected act, namely sent the email of 28 March 2024. His reasoning relates to the continuous reference in the ongoing email exchange from the claimant, during April and May referring to reasonable adjustments as referred to in his original email of 28 March 2024.[120]Mr Beck wrote two emails to the Claimant on 2 May 2024. The first of his emails reiterated the decision of 27 March 2024. This email said; “For these outlined reasons, we will not be considering you to join the Parkdean Resorts Entertainment Team in 2024 I’m afraid.” [ Page 106] In effect, this was a clear reiteration of ‘one season ban’ decision, made by the team, of which Mr Beck was a part, on 27 March 2024.[121]The Claimant did not accept that and wrote back to Mr Beck the same day and said inter alia: “Furthermore as outlined to not only Thomas but also to Helen Stuttard and Gemma Leggate the fact that I was removed from the talent pool for requesting reasonable adjustments (as supported and in line with the Equality Act 2010) is somewhat puzzling.” That is at [Page 107].[122]In the opinion of the minority of members that email “‘pulls up and pulls forward’ the 28 March 2024 email, as that is the email wherein the reasonable adjustments are themselves set out. The recipient of this email cannot properly understand what is meant by the Claimant’s “requesting reasonable adjustments” without that earlier email to hand or in mind and Mr Beck had that earlier email. 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 19 March 2017[123]In direct response to that email, Mr Beck banned the Claimant for applying for roles with the Respondent for 12 months on 2 May 2024. [Page 107] A 12-month ban would take the Claimant to 1 May 2025. Given the evidence we heard about the Respondent’s recruitment cycle and practices, the effect of that decision was to ban the Claimant for two seasons, not one. Not only would he not be “[joining] … in 2024”, but he would also not be joining in 2025 either. This ‘ratchetting up’ required an explanation from the Respondent and none was provided.[124]That requirement for an explanation on the Respondent was made all the more pressing by the fact that no reference was made, either by Gemma Leggate or by Thomas Redhead, in their various responses to the Claimant’s post-28 March 2024 correspondence with them, as being yet more evidence of “overwhelming” volumes of communication and, therefore, sufficient, in and of themselves, to justify a further longer ban. Moreover, it was not argued by either of them that he had become more “unreliable” in the time between 27 March 2024 and 2 May 2024. Neither of them increased the ban in their correspondence with the Claimant or even hinted at it. They simply dealt with the Claimant’s correspondence.[125]In the opinion of the minority of members, what is missing is an explanation for the 12-month ban imposed by Mr Beck on 2 May 2024 and how that differed from the fulsome explanation offered by Louise Bolton, [Paragraph 20 of her Witness Statement and her oral evidence] concerning the team meeting on 27 March 2024 and considerations the team had to justify the exclusion for the 2024 season; i.e., the considerations of overwhelming volumes of communication and unreliability, which the Panel agreed explained the one season ban imposed by the team.[126]No explanation was provided for the ‘doubling’ of the ban from one season to two, between the first email Mr Beck sent on 2 May 2024 and the second one he sent. Not only did Mr Beck not give evidence, but there was also no evidence of any sort that the Respondent had tried to contact him by email or phone to seek an understanding of the change that evidently occurred on 2 May 2024. All the Respondent offered by way of explanation is this:[127]“Liam Jay Beck no longer works for the Respondent and his new role includes working overseas, which is why he is not giving evidence in these proceedings.” [Para 9 of Thomas Redhead’s Witness Statement].[128]It was not even made clear when Mr Beck left the Respondent. Given that the List of Issues made such clear reference to Mr Beck’s decision on 2 May 2024, the Respondent needed, at the very least, to attempt to make some enquiries because, in the opinion of the minority of members, the Tribunal is not entitled to speculate about what his reasoning might have been and fill gaps. The Respondent failed to provide a non-discriminatory reason for the ‘ratchetting up’ imposed by Mr Beck for the simple reason that it provided no explanation at all.[129]The majority of the Tribunal, which includes the Employment Judge, does not agree. It finds that the reason for that extension to the ban was for exactly the same reasons as the claimant was removed from the 2024 talent pool in April as referred to above at paragraphs 108 -112.[130]Further, Ms Bolton’s evidence of the discussion at the meeting on 27 March was not clear how wide any “ban” would be. Her evidence was that the discussion was around not considering the claimant’s application and indeed further internal 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 20 March 2017 emails were also unclear around the extent of the “ban”. When the respondent wrote to the claimant first on 2 April, they stated it was 2024 talent pool but the later email on the same day suggested from any future applications. That email was intended to clarify what had been said in the earlier email but actually goes further than the subsequent email in May which references a 12 month ban. Accordingly, it is not clear the respondent properly considered from the outset how long any “ban” would last. Nevertheless, the majority of the Tribunal find that the reason for any “ban” remained the same for whatever period was identified, namely because of the claimant’s unreliability and relentless email communication which he then continued during April and May which further justified the reason why the respondent felt they had to take the decision in the first place. In effect nothing really changed since the initial decision was made before the email of 28 March 2024.[131]This Tribunal taking account of the numerous additional emails that were sent over that period do not consider the reason why Mr Beck said it was then a 12 month ban was because the claimant had raised the question of reasonable adjustments some six weeks earlier but really it was because the respondent was seeking to clarify the position during April to May.[132]The majority of the panel find that the reason for removing the claimant from the talent pool in 2024 and for the 12 month ban was because of his unreliability and his excessive email correspondence and not because of any protected act. This is clearly supported by the fact that this is a respondent who, after the claimant told them about his mental health conditions of ADHD and autism, offered him a job which he turned down and is entirely consistent with the evidence that this is an employer who employs a substantial number of neurodivergent people in their parks and would have been able to accommodate any reasonable adjustments requested by the claimant.[133]For those reasons the majority do not consider that either removing the claimant from the talent pool in April 24 or barring the claimant for applying for future roles for a 12 month period was because the claimant had done or threatened to do a protected act, namely because he had sent the email of 28 March 2024.[134]For those reasons the claimant’s complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation are not well-founded and are hereby dismissed. Approved by
Conclusions
[1]The Tribunal considered the Claimant’s application for reconsideration of the judgement sent to the parties on 15 July 2025; the respondent’s response dated 27 August 2025 and the claimant’s response to the respondent’s comments also dated 27 August 2025.[2]The Tribunal considered Rules 70 – 72 of Schedule of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.[3]The Tribunal determined that it could deal with the application without a hearing.[4]The Tribunal considered that the Claimant is simply requesting the Tribunal to reconsider evidence and legal submissions already heard by the Tribunal and upon which the Tribunal had already made findings of fact and law. It is merely an attempt to re-litigate a matter that has already been decided by this Tribunal, effectively in essence an appeal against the Judgment of the Tribunal and not a request for reconsideration.[5]The claimant has not adduced any new evidence including any NHS diagnosis of his condition to which he referred during the final hearing. The leading case of Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA CIV1, sets out the guidelines for the introduction of any new evidence, in particular that it must be shown that the new evidence could not have been obtained without reasonable diligence for use at the trial and notes the circumstances when granting leave to adduce new evidence must be very rare.[6]In considering any application for reconsideration, the Tribunal has to take into account the interests of both parties. It is in the interests of justice and the public interest that there should be, so far as possible, finality in any litigation, and cases should not be reconsidered, as this application is seeking to do, by asking for a reconsideration of evidence and legal submissions upon which findings of fact and law have already been determined.[7]For those reasons the Claimant’s application for a reconsideration of the Judgment dated 17 July 2025 is hereby dismissed.