Employment Judge M. HuntMs A. Meredith for respondentDate 19 January 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The Respondent’s application to strike out the claim succeeds in part. The complaints recorded in the following paragraphs of EJ Graham’s Case Management Order of 15 November 2024 are struck out as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine them (having been brought too late):a. paragraph 36.2.3 - 36.2.8 (direct discrimination).b. paragraph 37 (harassment).c. paragraph 38.2.2 (victimisation).d. paragraph 39 (disability discrimination by way of a failure to make adjustments). Approved by Employment Judge M. Hunt Date: 19 January 2026 Sent to the parties on: 29 January 2026 ............................................................ For the Tribunal Office Note Case Number: 3315215/2023 Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.[2]Case Number: 3315215/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr M. Razzaq v Home Office Before: Employment Judge M. Hunt[3]JUDGMENT ON RECONSIDERATION 1. The application for reconsideration of the judgment dated 19 January 2026 is refused.
REASONS
[3]At a hearing on 19 January 2026, I struck out various elements of the claim to have suffered discrimination, harassment and victimisation contrary to the Equality Act 2010.[4]The Claimant has sought reconsideration of this decision in accordance with Part 12 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (the “Rules”). The guiding principle for me to consider is whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the judgment. Finality of judicial decisions is an important component of the interests of justice.[5]If I consider that the Claimant has no reasonable prospect of having the judgment varied or revoked, Rule 70(2) states that I must refuse the application.[6]Upon consideration of all of the documents, I determined that there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked.[7]The issues raised by the parts of the claim I struck out had not been raised promptly by the Claimant, either with the Respondent or the Tribunal. It was arguable that a Tribunal might find that the fact that he raised concerns via an internal grievance process, which was not pursued, would render it just Case Number: 3315215/2023 and equitable for those concerns to be considered by the Tribunal nonetheless, but no others.[8]The Claimant believes that all acts of alleged discrimination that he says he suffered formed part of a single, continuous act of discrimination, so should all be considered together. I disagreed and found that no reasonable Tribunal would find that to be the case. I took all relevant matters into account, including that the people involved, and what they allegedly said or did, were not the same, nor were they concerned by the grievance. The matters were separate and unrelated. I also broadly considered the nature of the allegations and the objective facts available, although that was not critical to my finding. Bearing this in mind, alongside the important principle of finality, there is no reasonable prospect of my judgment being varied or revoked.[9]Just because these matters may have been raised previously with Employment Judge Graham does not change the matter – he listed the preliminary hearing at which I made my decision precisely because he believed that some or all of the complaints had been brought too late to be considered by the Tribunal.[10]Those allegations that arguably formed part of a continuous act of discrimination and for which it could arguably be considered just and equitable to allow them to be considered by the Tribunal were permitted to proceed. Approved by