Ms A Laurie v Greater London Authority: 6004805/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6004805/2024

Between

Ms A LaurieClaimant

Greater London AuthorityRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Illing

In person for claimant

Mr T Welch (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 7 May 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]At the relevant time the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of dyslexia, mixed anxiety and depression and / or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[2]The complaints of discrimination from disability (s.15 Equality Act) and failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss 20 & 21 Equality Act) and harassment related to disability (s.26 Equality Act) are therefore dismissed.

REASONS

Conclusion

[1]The Claimant initiated Acas Early Conciliation on 16 April 2024, which concluded on 28 May 2024.

[2]Upon issue on 28 June 2024, the Claimant’s claim included the following Race discrimination complaints: 2.1. Direct discrimination (S. 13 Equality Act), 2.2. Harassment (s. 26 Equality Act); and 2.3. Victimisation (s.27 Equality Act). [20]

[3]The Response was submitted on 7 August 2024 and all claims were denied.

[4]This case was listed for a private preliminary hearing on 3 October 2024.

[5]On 27 September 2024, the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal and the Respondent asking to amend her claim. She detailed her proposed amendments within a List of Issues and sought to include the following claims: 5.1. Discrimination arising from disability (s. 15 Equality Act) 5.2. Failure to make reasonable adjustments (s.20/s.21 Equality Act).

[6]The Claimant’s list of issues amounted to 38 pages and the Respondent objected to the proposed amendments.

[7]Employment Judge Hook heard the preliminary hearing on the 3 October 2024 and determined that the case should be listed for a further 1-day hearing as the original listing of 2-hours was insufficient to deal with all of the issues. Employment Judge Hook determined that whilst the Claimant had given a detailed account of her mental health problems and her dyslexia, the existence of the conditions were not supported by medical evidence before the Tribunal. Employment Judge Hook balanced the risk of injustice to the Claimant in light of the conditions she had described, however, he was also unwilling to allow the application without considering medical evidence and that it was appropriate for the claimant to be required to provide medical evidence about her disability. The Claimant was to be provided with an opportunity to provide good evidence of her dyslexia and mental health conditions.

[8]The Claimant was Ordered to comply with the standard Orders for disability and medical evidence, which included the following: 8.1. At Para 28 [114], “It is for the claimant to decide what to provide but she may wish to provide a report from her GP or other doctor to support the assertions she makes that she has various conditions, the effect on her and of medication including whether they would have affected her ability to set out her case fully when she presented her claim.” 8.2. At paragraph 30 [114] and 32 [115] the Claimant was ordered to write to the respondent by 14 November 2024 with the following information about each impairment:30.1 How long has the claimant had [the impairment]?

30.2 What are/were the effects of [the impairment] on the claimant’s ability to do day-to-day activities [between date and date]? The claimant should give clear examples. [If possible, the examples should be from the time of the events the claim is about.] The Tribunal will usually be deciding whether the claimant had a disability at that time. In general, day-to-day activities are things people do on a regular or daily basis, and examples include shopping, reading and writing, having a conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking and travelling by various forms of transport, and taking part in social activities. Normal day-to-day activities can include general work-related activities, and study and educationrelated activities, such as interacting with colleagues, following instructions, using a computer, driving, carrying out interviews, preparing written documents, and keeping to a timetable or a shift pattern.

30.3 Give the dates when the effects of the impairments started and stopped. If they have not stopped, say how long they are expected to last.

30.4 If the effects lasted less than 12 months, why does the claimant say they were long-term?

30.5 Has the claimant had medical treatment, including medication? If so, what and when?

30.6 Has the claimant taken other measures to treat or correct the impairments? If so, what and when?

30.7 What would the effects of the impairments have been without any treatment or other measures? The claimant should give clear dayto-day examples, if possible.

30.8 Any other information the claimant relies on to show that they had a disability. 31 The claimant must by 14 November 2024 send to the respondent:

31.1 copies of the parts of their GP and other medical records that are relevant to whether they had the disability at the time of the events the claim is about. They may blank out anything that is clearly not relevant;

31.2 any other evidence relevant to whether they had the disability at that time.

[9]This case was listed for a further public preliminary hearing on 16 January 2025 for 1-day. Due to the overlap in medical evidence required to consider the application to amend, Employment Judge Hook also determined that this hearing would also determine the issue of whether the Claimant was a disabled person. [114] This next hearing would also review the list of issues.

[10]On 16 December 2024, the Claimant provided her medical evidence, which was redacted. [129 – 132]

[11]On 16 January 2025 Employment Judge Volkmer heard the case management hearing and worked with the Parties to identify the list of issues and to identify, by underlining, those issues that would be subject to an application to amend. Employment Judge Volkmer listed this case for a 2-day public preliminary hearing to determine the following [206]: 11.2 The claimant’s application to amend as dated 27 September 2024. 11.3 Whether the Claimant was disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time; and 11.4 To consider further case management.

[12]The Case Management Orders as sent to the Parties on 21 January 2025 included the list of issues identified by Employment Judge Volkmer and invited the parties to write to the Tribunal by 31 March 2025 if either party believed the list to be wrong or incomplete.

[13]The Claimant was also ordered to send her unredacted medical records to Employment Judge Volkmer so that she could determine whether the redactions were relevant or not. The Claimant provided these documents on 30 January 2025 [200 – 204].

[14]On 28 March 2025 Employment Judge Volkmer required the Claimant to provide her medical records to the respondent without redactions as the information was relevant to the alleged disabilities.

[15]On 7 April 2025, the Claimant submitted an amended list of issues with her comments in red, for which she had obtained an extension of time. This included the Respondent’s highlighted comments in orange where they objected to any specific amendment as the respondent contended that these issues were not within the ET1.

The Hearing

[16]There was a bundle of 343 pages. Page numbers have been retained within this Judgment as [XX] to assist those reading it.

[17]I heard evidence from the Claimant. The Claimant’s impact statement was at pages [246 – 254] of the bundle. This was her evidence-in-chief and the respondent cross examined her on this.

[18]At the outset of the hearing, due to the list of issues having been amended, it was agreed with the Parties that the list of issues at pages [232 – 241] (List of Issues) would be the document to be referred to as this was the latest version and included the following proposed amendments: 18.2 the amendments requested by the Claimant at the preliminary hearing with Employment Judge Volkmer, which are underlined. 18.3 The new factual complaints identified by the Claimant and objected to by the Respondent as highlighted in orange. 18.4 The amendments to list of issues detailed in Employment Judge Volkmer’s Case Management Orders (underlined) as amended further by the Claimant and visible as comments, in red and in comment boxes, to the underlined proposed amendments. Conduct of the Hearing

[19]The Hearing was conducted following the timetable proposed by Employment Judge Volkmer.

[20]The Claimant was supported by her sister. During evidence the Claimant was reminded that she could only use the clean, soft copy of the bundle as her own hard copy had been marked up. Additionally, her sister was there to support her and could not answer questions on her behalf or assist her in answering questions during evidence, without seeking permission first.

[21]By way of reasonable adjustment, from the outset it was agreed that the hearing would adjourn at 10 – to each hour, to give the Claimant a minimum of a regular 10-minute break. If she required further breaks, the Claimant, or her sister could ask for this. Additional breaks were sought and following the conclusion of evidence, the Claimant was unable to participate further and so the hearing on the first day was adjourned early.

[22]The Claimant also had a notetaker attend the hearing, which was by video.

[23]The Claimant produced a document at 0837 on the morning of the second day asking for this to be taken as her evidence. This was objected to by the respondent. This new document provided new evidence and the Respondent submitted that this amounted to a re-examination of the Claimant’s evidence from the previous day and new evidence, despite the Claimant having concluded her evidence. It had also been produced whilst she was no longer under Oath.

[24]I considered whether the Claimant’s new document had been submitted as a new statement, which I found that it had. I considered whether it could be permitted to be used for the purpose of final submissions but held that the extent of the new evidence within it would cause an in-balance in the fairness of the hearing.

[25]The new document was not admitted as new evidence. However, the Claimant was permitted to comment on any answers she had given during her oral evidence within her final submissions given that she had been unable to participate further after being cross examined.

[26]The respondent was asked to give closing submissions first. Following this, a longer break was taken to enable the Claimant to prepare before providing her closing submissions. Both parties were also invited to submit their final submissions in writing and the parties were informed that a note of their submissions had been taken and there was no obligation on them to submit the submissions in writing.

[27]Neither party submitted their closing submissions in writing. Findings of Fact for disability

[28]The Claimant asserts that she is a disabled person because of a mental impairment that includes dyslexia, depressive disorder, grief disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This was captured by Employment Judge Hook [112].

[29]To Employment Judge Volkmer, the list of issues states that the Claimant asserted that she has dyslexia, PTSD, depression with mixed anxiety disorder. These conditions were not amended by the Claimant in her written amendments to the List of Issues and so these are the conditions I have referred to. [236] Medical Evidence

[30]The Claimant provided the following documents, in chronological order, as evidence of her medical conditions: 30.2 22 Mar 2022 – [203] This letter from Talk Wandsworth from the Psychotherapist, confirmed that the Claimant’s difficulties were consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) was offered and the Psychotherapist stated that the Claimant’s symptoms for anxiety and depression were in the mild ranges. There is no reference to any medication. 30.3 18 Aug 23 the Claimant attended Accident and Emergency at St. George’s Hospital in Tooting. The discharge report identifies that the Claimant had had a twinge in her chest [257] and chest pain medication was prescribed (Co-dydramol). The pain was identified as MSK, muscular skeletal. The report also describes that the claimant looked well and there is no reference to any other medication or conditions suffered by the Claimant. 30.4 11 Jun 24 the Claimant again attended Accident and Emergency at St. George’s Hospital for chest pain [265]. Dihydrocodeine and paracetamol were prescribed and there is no reference to any other medication or conditions. 30.5 29 Aug 24 the Claimant again attended Accident and Emergency at St George’s hospital [271] with left arm pain. This report records that the Claimant states that she suffers with anxiety and depression and panic attacks. It also refers to PMH (previous medical history) as anxiety depression and Propranolol and records that the claimant looked bright and alert, looks very well. The Claimant was told that this was Neuropathic pain and verbal advice was given. 30.6 30 Aug 24 the Claimant received a letter from NHS Wandsworth Talking therapies regarding Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) re stress and anxiety, from the Senior Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner [200]. It confirmed that the Claimant had attended an overcoming stress course from 28 May 2024 until 6 August 2024. The Claimant stated in evidence that her symptoms of depression and anxiety had been assessed weekly during this period and that they had risen from moderate to severe. The Claimant was advised to continue with the coping skills to manage her stress and anxiety. 30.7 18 October 2024, the Claimant’s GP has provided a letter regarding the Claimant’s past medical history for the purpose of a hearing [278]. The letter confirms the following:30.7.1 That the Claimant reports that she was diagnosed with dyslexia at 9-years’ old.

30.7.2 That she has a diagnosis of mixed anxiety with depression and that the Claimant had reported to the GP that she was being assessed for PTSD.

30.7.3 The GP confirmed that since November 2023 the Claimant had had some bereavements, which had worsened her mental health and that she was seeing the GP at that time for stress at work. The GP also confirmed that the claimant had been prescribed Zopiclone to help her sleep.

30.7.4 The GP confirmed that the Claimant had tried Sertraline for her mental health but switched to Mirtazapine and Propranolol. They also confirmed that the Claimant felt that her panic attacks had worsened since November 2023. [202] The letter does not provide any dates for this medication. 30.8 28 Oct 24 [279] Centro de Nour provided a report with dates of consultations, 7 Jul 24, 3 – 10 Aug 24 (Barcelona), 20 Sept 24, 4 – 9 Oct 24, 15 – 21 Oct 24 (Barcelona). The Claimant confirmed that this was for her mental health and grief and that they had provided a specialist spiritual therapy. 30.9 10 Nov 24 [280] A specialist (Gemma Spavin) assessed the Claimant for dyslexia. The specialist confirmed that the Claimant had weaknesses in her working memory, short-term memory, phonological memory, phonological awareness and phonological processing speed, which are all characteristics of dyslexia. The specialist confirmed that the Claimant has dyslexia, no other information was provided. 30.10 15 Dec 24 [282] the Fitrah Centre confirmed that the Claimant had received spiritual therapy and healing from them on 29 May 24, 13 June 24, 18 June 24 and 9 July 24. 30.11 14 Jan 2025 the Claimant’s GP wrote to the Tribunal and explained that the Claimant was experiencing an exacerbation of her mental health disease and requested adjustments in the form of regular breaks. [152]

[31]The Claimant did not produce any medical records from her GP, only the letters 18 October 2024 and 14 January 2025.

[32]During the course of disclosing her medical evidence, the Claimant sought an extension of time due to the delays caused by the NHS being unable to provide copy documents immediately. This extension was granted.

[33]The Claimant took her own actions to obtain a private dyslexia diagnosis as her school only kept records for children for 6-years’ after leaving.

[34]The GP letters of 18 October 2024 and 14 January 2025 have been prepared by the GP at the Claimant’s request for the purpose of this claim. Disability Impact Statement

[35]Within her disability impact statement [246 – 254] written for this hearing, the Claimant confirmed the following: 35.2 Her disabilities are depressive disorder, PTSD, mixed anxiety which includes panic attacks and dyslexia. 35.3 That she has taken daily anti-depressants (originally Sertraline and now Mirtazapine) for the last seven to nine months. 35.4 She was prescribed sleeping tablets (Zopiclone) from February 2024 to late September 2024. 35.5 The Claimant states that the medication makes her drowsy, disorientated and unable to focus. She also uses alternative medication. 35.6 The Claimant states that the panic attacks have resulted in the A&E attendances for chest pain and that there was an additional attendance on 15 November 2023. 35.7 The Claimant was diagnosed with mild depression around November 2014, as a seasonal condition. 35.8 That the PTSD diagnosis was in March 2022. 35.9 That the Depression disorder was diagnosed in November 2023. 35.10 That the dyslexia was diagnosed as a child, approximately aged 9. 35.11 That the first panic attack was in October / November 2023 following her reporting stress and hostilities. 35.12 The Claimant states that she informed the GP that she believed that her deterioration was due to the issues at work. 35.13 The impact statement (page 3) [248] states that the disabilities and symptoms have impacted her daily since around October / November 2023 and became worse when she submitted this claim. She states that her PTSD and anxiety heightened when she was completing the form she suffered from chest pains, panic attacks, drowsiness, confusion, memory lapses and that these, and other symptoms, negatively impacted on her ability to understand and complete and submit the ET1 claim. 35.14 Since filing her claim, the Claimant asserts that her conditions have worsened. 35.15 The Claimant suffered two bereavements, one in January 2024 and one in March 2024. 35.16 That the Claimant has been unable to meet her daily needs due to her disabilities since April 2024. [253 para 3] This includes a loss of appetite, loss of interest in food, disconnected from hobbies, nausea, extreme fatigue, night terrors and physical tremors. 35.17 During the time of writing and submitting the ET1 claim form, the Claimant asserted that on a day-to-day basis [253 para 4] she would “struggle with understanding information, writing emails, reading, processing information, brain fog, memory issues – whereas once I would only lose my keys occasionally, I now lose multiple items a day misplacing and forgetting where I have placed it.” 35.18 That her depression and anxiety deteriorated from 28 May 2024 – 6 August 2024, which is evidenced in the letter of 30 August 2024. Relevant Dates

[36]From 27 March 2023 and 16 November 2023, the Respondent states that the Claimant was engaged as an agency worker via Reed.

[37]The respondent states that the Claimant was employed on 17 November 2023 on a fixed term contract until her contract ended on 29 March 2024. The Claimant was on sick leave when her employment ended and had been on sick leave since 7 February 2024. The Claimant has not produced a copy of any fit note or GP record.

[38]The Claimant was employed as an Executive Assistant in the Executive Assistant Support Unit.

[39]In evidence it was put to the Claimant that the dates of the earliest and latest allegations for the proposed amendments in relation to a disability discrimination claim were the relevant dates for the purpose of determining disability. The earliest date was 11 December 2023 (issue 4.1) and the latest date referred to in the List of Issues is 15 March 29 March 2024. The date of dismissal was 29 March 2024.

[40]The relevant dates for this claim are the dates upon which the Claimant alleges discriminatory acts occurred. I find that the relevant dates are 11 December 2023 until the date of dismissal being 29 March 2024. The law Disability

[41]Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 provides:(1) 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.

(2) A reference to a disabled person is a reference to a person who has a disability.

(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of disability – a. A reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who has a particular disability; b. A reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who have the same disability.

(4) This Act (except Part 12 and section 190) applies in relation to a person who has had a disability as it applies in relation to a person who has a disability; accordingly –

(5) A reference (however expressed) to a person who has a disability includes a reference to a person who has had the disability, and

(6) A reference (however expressed) to a person who does not have a disability includes a reference to a person who has not had the disability.

[42]Whether an adverse effect is 'substantial' or not may vary according to the time at which the assessment is made and the period over which it is considered.

[43]In All Answers Ltd v Wes,

[2021] IRLR 612

the question was the assessment of the likelihood of the adverse effect lasting for 12 months. The Court of Appeal relied on McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] [IRLR 227, 2008] ICR 431 to hold that this assessment must be made as at the date of the alleged discrimination and must not take into account anything only known or occurring after that time. Therefore, whether the issue under consideration is if a condition is 'recurring' or 'long term', or if there is a substantial adverse effect, the approach must be the same, namely, to assess what would have been the position as understood at the date of the alleged discrimination. This seems also to be consistent with the approach of the House of Lords in London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm

[2008] UKHL 43

[2008] IRLR 700

[44]When the severity of an impairment is in issue, the tribunal will be faced with conflicting evidence and will have to exercise its judgment in deciding what is, essentially, a question of fact and degree. In Paterson v Comr of Police of the Metropolis

[2007] IRLR 763

[2007] ICR 1522

, EAT, Elias J (at para 68) formulated the correct approach for deciding on the severity of a disabling condition as involving inquiry as to 'how the individual carries out the activity compared with how he would do it if not suffering the impairment. If that difference is more than the kind of difference one might expect taking a cross-section of the population, then the effects are substantial.'

[45]I have also been asked to consider the case of J v DLA Piper

[2010] ICR1052

(1) at paragraph 42. Specifically, “The second is not characterised as a mental condition at all but simply as a reaction to adverse circumstances (such as problems at work) or – if the jargon may be forgiven – “adverse life events”. This continues to state “a reaction to adverse circumstances: it is a common sense observation that such reactions are not normally long-lived.”

[46]Additionally, I have been asked to consider Mutombo-Mpania v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd

UKEATS/002/18/JW

at paragraphs 14 and 17 of the discussion, which reminds the Tribunal that the burden of proof is on the Claimant to show that they fall within the Statutory definition of a disabled person. It is for the claimant to provide evidence and information about particular activities, work related or otherwise, that they are unable to undertake or that were adversely affected by the impairment. Submissions

[47]The Parties were permitted to make closing submissions. Conclusions Disability

[48]The issue I am being asked to consider today is issue number 3 in EJ Volkmer’s Orders, which is the question of disability.

[49]In reaching my conclusion, I have also had regard to Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 including Part 1: Determination of Disability and Part 2: Guidance.

[50]I have found that the relevant dates for the issues raised are from the earliest complaint of 11 December 2023 to the last complaint of disability discrimination being 29 March 2024.

[51]The evidence I have before me includes: 51.2 22 Mar 2022 – [203] letter from Talk Wandsworth from the Psychotherapist, which confirmed that the Claimant’s difficulties were consistent with diagnosis of PTSD. CBT was offered and the Psychotherapist stated that the symptoms were in the mild ranges. 51.3 18 Aug 23 where the Claimant attended Accident and Emergency for chest pain. [257] 51.4 11 Jun 24 where the Claimant again attended Accident and Emergency for chest pain [265]. 51.5 29 Aug 24 where the Claimant attended St Georges hospital [271] with left arm pain. This report also records that the Claimant states that she suffers with anxiety and panic attacks. 51.6 30 Aug 24 the letter from NHS Wandsworth Talking therapies regarding CBT re stress and anxiety, from the Senior Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner. This confirmed that the claimant had attended an overcoming stress course from 28 May 2024 until 6 August 2024. 51.7 18 October 2024, the Claimant’s GP has provided a letter regarding the Claimant’s past medical history for the purpose of a hearing. The letter confirmed the following:51.7.1 That the Claimant reports that she was diagnosed with dyslexia at 9-years’ old.

51.7.2 That she has a diagnosis of mixed anxiety with depression and that the Claimant had reported to the GP that she was being assessed for PTSD. No dates for this diagnosis was given.

51.7.3 The GP confirmed that since November 2023 the Claimant had had some bereavements, which had worsened her mental health and that she was seeing the GP at that time for stress at work. The GP also confirmed that the claimant had been prescribed Zopiclone to help her sleep.

51.7.4 The GP confirmed that the Claimant had tried Sertraline for her mental health but switched to Mirtazapine and Propranolol. They also confirmed that the Claimant felt that her panic attacks had worsened since November 2023. [202] The Claimant states in her impact statement that she was on medication for some 7 – 9 months prior to the statement. 51.8 28 Oct 24 [279] Centro de Nour provided a report with dates of consultations for the Claimant’s mental health and grief and provided a specialist spiritual therapy. 51.9 10 Nov 24 a [280] A Specialist confirmed that the Claimant has dyslexia, no other information was provided. 51.10 15 Dec 24 [281] the Fitrah Centre confirmed that the Claimant had received spiritual therapy and healing from them from May – June 2024 51.11 14 Jan 2025 the Claimant’s GP wrote to the Tribunal and explained that the Claimant was experiencing an exacerbation of her mental health disease and requested adjustments in the form of regular breaks. [152]

[52]The Orders given to the Claimant following the hearing with Employment Judge Hook are specific. [114 – 115]. I accept that the Claimant was permitted to provide a report from her GP to confirm her conditions, the effect on her and of the medication and whether it would have affected her ability to set out her case fully at the outset. However, the Claimant was also Ordered to provide further information about her disability as detailed in paragraph 8 above.

[53]It is the Claimant’s position that the GP letter of the 18 October 2024 identifies her conditions and provides details as to her past medical history and that her mental health had deteriorated from November 2023. The Claimant confirmed that the bereavements had been in January and March 2024. It is also the Claimant’s position that the letter details the impact of her conditions on her daily life and that it provides a clear indication of everything required regarding her impairment, her medication and the length of time she has had her conditions.

[54]The Claimant asserted that her panic attacks had increased since November 2023 and this was when she had been asking for reasonable adjustments but not getting them.

[55]The Claimant has obtained medical evidence from her NHS hospital appointments, which, other than the March 22 letter, are post-employment documents. The Claimant has also taken positive action to obtain a dyslexia diagnosis when she found that her school records had been destroyed.

[56]It is the Respondent’s position that the burden of proof to prove disability rests with the Claimant and that the Claimant has not provided medical evidence of her conditions and nor has she provided evidence of the impact on her day-to-day activities. Furthermore, the Respondent asserts that the Claimant’s impairment was a response to adverse life events, including stress at work and the bereavements in January and March 2024. The respondent denies that the Claimant is a disabled person.

[57]The impact statement is a well-structured comprehensive document, which was supported by detailed closing submissions from the Claimant. I am reminded that the question of disability is in relation to the relevant period. A clinically diagnosed mental or physical impairment does not automatically amount to a disability. Likewise, a undiagnosed physical or mental condition may amount to a disability. The question of whether a person is a disabled person is a legal test and it must be evidenced with evidence of the impact of the impairment on the day-to-day life of the Claimant. Did the claimant have a disability? Did the claimant have a physical or mental impairment?

[58]The Claimant’s GP in the letter of 18 October 2024 confirms that the Claimant has a diagnosis of mixed anxiety and depression but provides no further information. Additionally, they confirm that the Claimant was being assessed for PTSD, but do not confirm this diagnosis.

[59]The GP confirms that the Claimant was taking medication for her depression but does not provide a date for this. The Claimant states in her statement that this was for 7 – 9 months prior to her impact statement. She also states that the process of bringing the claim has made her symptoms worse. She believes that she has been unable to meet her daily needs since April 2024. I will consider each impairment in turn:

[61]In November 2024 the Claimant has received a written diagnosis of dyslexia, but the diagnosis provides no further information. I conclude that the Claimant does have dyslexia following this diagnosis. Dyslexia is a lifelong condition, and I accept that the Claimant has suffered with this impairment from childhood.

Conclusion

[62]The Claimant has stated that she has had depression since 2014, but no medical documents other than those detailed above have been disclosed and the GP letter of 18 October 2024 does not refer to any detailed history of her medical condition. The GP letter provides no further information as to when she was diagnosed other than the bereavement in November 2023 made her mental health deteriorate. Additionally, the letter of March 2022 from Talk Wandsworth does refer to anxiety and depression, noting that the condition was mild. There is no evidence for the intervening period between March 2022 and November 2023.

[63]Given the Claimant’s statement and the above documentary evidence, if I take this at its highest, I conclude that the Claimant was suffering from mixed depression and anxiety from November 2023.

[64]Limited evidence has been provided with regard to the impairment of PTSD.

[65]On March 2022, Talk Wandsworth conclude that the Claimant’s symptoms were consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD and that her scores for depression and anxiety were in the mild range. The GP, in the letter of 18 October 2024, refers to him being told by the Claimant that she was being assessed for PTSD, but there is no confirmation of a diagnosis from the GP.

[66]I conclude that the Claimant was being assessed for PTSD but given the lack of evidence and the wording of the GP letter, I am not satisfied that the Claimant was diagnosed with PTSD.

[67]In reaching this conclusion, I remind myself that there is no requirement of an impairment, physical or mental, to have a formal medical diagnosis to evidence it.

[68]In applying the Statutory Tests, I will continue to consider each alleged impairment in turn. What is a “long-term” effect?

[69]A long-term effect of an impairment is one: 69.2 which has lasted at least 12 months; or 69.3 where the total period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months; or 69.4 which is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.

[70]The evidence provided by the Claimant is limited.

[71]Dyslexia is a lifelong condition, and I am satisfied that the effect of this impairment is long-term.

[72]I have found that the letter of March 2022 confirms that the Claimant was diagnosed with mild anxiety and depression at the date on which this letter was written. The GP letter of 18 October 2024 refers to the Claimant seeking treatment from November 2023 and the Talk Wandsworth letter of 30 August 2024 support that the Claimant’s impairment of anxiety and depression was getting worse. [200]. I am satisfied that this impairment was long-term at the point at which the GP letter was written.

[73]Whilst I am not satisfied that the Claimant received a diagnosis of PTSD, I am satisfied that she believes that she has this condition. This condition is referred to in the March 2022 letter and in the GP letter of October 2024. I am satisfied that this impairment was long-term. Did it have a substantial adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities?

[74]A substantial adverse effect is something which is more than a minor or trivial effect. The requirement that an effect must be substantial reflects the general understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which might exist among people.

[75]An impairment may not directly prevent someone from carrying out one or more normal day-to-day activities, but it may still have a substantial adverse long-term effect on how they carry out those activities. What are normal day-to-day activities?

[76]Normal day-to-day activities are those that are carried out by most men or women on a fairly regular and frequent basis. These include activities such as walking, driving, using public transport, cooking, eating, lifting and carrying everyday objects, typing, writing (and taking exams), going to the toilet, talking, listening to conversations or music, reading, taking part in normal social interaction or forming social relationships, nourishing and caring for oneself. Normal day-to-day activities also encompass the activities which are relevant to working life.

[77]In any case where the individual is receiving medical or other treatment which alleviates or removes the effects, though not the impairment, the treatment is ignored and the impairment is taken to have the effect it would have had without such treatment.

[78]Taking each impairment in turn:

[79]The diagnosis from the Specialist has identified the signs of dyslexia for the Claimant. There has been no evidence as to the impact of these on the Claimant on a day-to-day basis or otherwise. The impact statement identifies that the effect of this impairment on the Claimant increased during the period when she was writing her ET1.

[80]The relevant dates for the purpose of this test are the dates upon which the Claimant alleges she was discriminated against. During the relevant period of 11 December 2023 – 29 March 2024, given the lack of evidence, I am not satisfied that the impairment of dyslexia had a substantial effect on the Claimant’s day-today activities.

[81]The GP letter of 18 October 2024 does not provide any details as to the impact of this alleged impairments on the Claimant. It refers to stress at work and that this was causing her mental health to deteriorate. The Claimant has not provided any GP records to evidence her contact with the GP or the impact of her impairment on her activities.

[82]Other than as detailed above, the Claimant has not provided any medical evidence or GP records to provide dates of diagnosis, dates of any attendances at the GP or other medical practitioner or any treatment for her condition.

[83]The indication within the GP letter of 18 October 2024 that the bereavement suffered by the Claimant in November 2023 caused her mental health to deteriorate. However, the bereavements occurred in January and March 2024.

[84]The GP indicates that the Claimant was also attending the surgery in relation to stress at work.

[85]This is a circumstance where GP records would provide the details required. I am satisfied that the Claimant has had mild anxiety and depression in March 2022 and then a subsequent diagnosis in November 2023, however I am not satisfied that this impairment had a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day life during the relevant period.

[86]In her impact statement, the Claimant asserts that from April 2024, she was unable to meet her daily needs. I conclude that at this time the impact of her impairment of mixed anxiety and depression was substantial.

[87]The GP letter of 18 October 2024 does not provide any details as to the impact of PTSD on the Claimant. It refers to an assessment for PTSD and that stress at work was causing the Claimant’s mental health to deteriorate. The Claimant has not provided any GP records to evidence her contact with the GP or the impact of her impairment on her activities.

[88]Other than as detailed above, the Claimant has not provided any medical evidence or GP records to provide dates of diagnosis, dates of any attendances at the GP or other medical practitioner or any treatment for her condition.

[89]I am not satisfied that this impairment had a substantial adverse effect on the Claimant’s day-to-day life. Did the claimant have medical treatment to treat or correct the impairment?

[90]Again, I will consider each impairment in turn regarding medication or other treatment being undertaken to treat the impairment:

[91]No evidence has been provided to show what treatment or other corrective process the Claimant is undergoing to treat or correct the impairment.

[92]In considering medication, the Claimant has told the Tribunal in evidence and within her impact statement that she has been taking anti-depressants, specifically Mirtazapine for 7 – 9 months. The Claimant has not given a date when she was prescribed medication, but this detail is within the impact statement. [246 para 3], which was submitted on 16 December 2024.

[93]The Claimant has provided limited evidence that she sought medical assistance from her GP or other medical professional within the relevant period. The only treatment sought by the claimant within the relevant dates includes that the GP confirmed in his letter of 18 October 2024 that the claimant had been prescribed anti-depressants and a sleeping tablet. There is no evidence as to when this prescription was issued other than the sleeping tablets followed the bereavement. The GP letter states that the bereavement was in November 2023, within the impact statement, the Claimant states that she was prescribed a sleeping pill (Zopiclone) to take as required from around February 2024 – September 2024. [246].

[94]I am satisfied that the Claimant was prescribed a Zopiclone from February 2024, but that the anti-depressants were prescribed after the relevant period.

[95]I have reviewed the evidence in relation to the effect on the Claimant were she not to take the Zopiclone, and there is none. There is no evidence as to how often she took it, or the effect if she did not.

[96]There is no evidence for ongoing treatment for PTSD.

[97]I conclude that the claimant was having medical treatment to treat the impairment in the form of Zopiclone on an as required basis from February 2024 onwards, but I do not conclude that the Claimant was using this treatment during the relevant period. Conclusion as to disability for the relevant period of 11 December 2023 – 29 March 2024

[98]I have found that the relevant dates are 11 December 2023 – 29 March 2024.

[99]I have found that the impairments of dyslexia, mixed anxiety and depression and PTSD were all long term

[100]On balance, having reviewed the medical evidence, other contemporaneous documents, including the claimant’s evidence to this Tribunal, I have found that the impairments did not have an adverse effect that was more than trivial on the claimant during the relevant period.

[101]In conclusion, the Claimant was not disabled on the relevant date of 11 December 2023 – 29 March 2024.

[1]The Reserved Judgment with reasons dated 07 May 2025 was sent to the Parties on 15 May 2025. The Clamant made a request for the reconsideration of this Judgment on 29 May 2025, within 14-days of the Judgment being sent to the Parties.

[2]The Parties were invited to make written submissions in relation to this application for consideration and the Respondent made submissions dated 31 July 2025.

[3]The Parties were informed that the reconsideration would proceed on the basis that the Claimant’s written submissions following the hearing on the 28 and 29 April 2025 had not been sent to the Judge and were not considered within the making of the Reserved Judgment. The Parties were informed that this would take place without a hearing and they were invited to make further written submissions.

[4]The Claimant made submissions that she wanted a reconsideration hearing, however she was too unwell to attend or to provide further written reasons at within the given time frames. The Respondent did not make further submissions.

[5]Having considered the Claimant’s further email correspondence, for the reasons given below, I determined that it was in the interests of justice and the overriding objective to conduct the reconsideration on the papers and without a hearing. This reconsideration took place on 16 August 2025.

[6]In considering the Claimant’s application, I have reviewed the following documents: 6.1. Reserved Judgment of 15 May 2025 6.2. Hearing Notes of 28 and 29 April 2025 6.3. Claimant’s Written Submissions (8-pages) dated 30 April 2025 6.4. Claimant’s Reconsideration Application dated 29 May 2025 6.5. Respondent’s email of 31 July 2025 6.6. Claimant’s email of 31 July 2025 6.7. Case Management Orders of EJ Hook dated 03 October 2024 6.8. Case Management Orders of EJ Volkmer dated 16 January 2025 6.9. Claimant’s email of 08 August 2025 6.10. Claimant’s email of 11 August 2025

[7]The Claimant’s email of the 11 July 2025 is an application for the postponement of the listing hearing currently listed for 01 October 2025. This email has been located and will be considered as a matter of urgency.

The law

[8]Rules 68 to 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 provide as follows: RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGMENTS Principles 68.(1) The Tribunal may, either on its own initiative (which may reflect a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) or on the application of a party, reconsider any judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.

(2) A judgment under reconsideration may be confirmed, varied or revoked.

(3) If the judgment under reconsideration is revoked the Tribunal may take the decision again. In doing so, the Tribunal is not required to come to the same conclusion. Application for reconsideration 69. Except where it is made in the course of a hearing, an application for reconsideration must be made in writing setting out why reconsideration is necessary and must be sent to the Tribunal within 14 days of the later of— (a)the date on which the written record of the judgment sought to be reconsidered was sent to the parties, or (b)the date that the written reasons were sent, if these were sent separately. Process for reconsideration 70. (1) The Tribunal must consider any application made under rule 69 (application for reconsideration). (2) If the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application must be refused and the Tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal. (3) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the Tribunal must send a notice to the parties specifying the period by which any written representations in respect of the application must be received by the Tribunal, and seeking the views of the parties on whether the application can be determined without a hearing. The notice may also set out the Tribunal’s provisional views on the application.

(4) If the application has not been refused under paragraph (2), the judgment must be reconsidered at a hearing unless the Tribunal considers, having regard to any written representations provided under paragraph (3), that a hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

(5) If the Tribunal determines the application without a hearing the parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to make further written representations in respect of the application. Reconsideration by the Tribunal on its own initiative 71. Where the Tribunal proposes to reconsider a judgment on its own initiative, it must inform the parties of the reasons why the decision is being reconsidered and the judgment must be reconsidered (as if an application had been made and not refused) in accordance with rule 70(3) to (5) (process for reconsideration).

[9]Under Rule 70, a Judgment will only be reconsidered where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. This allows an Employment Tribunal a broad discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a Judgment is appropriate in the circumstances. Whilst the discretion under the rules is wide under the ‘interests of justice’ test, it is not boundless; it must be exercised judicially and with regard, not just to the interests of the party seeking the review, but also to the interests of the other party and to the public interest requirement that there should, as far as possible, be finality of litigation - Flint v Eastern Electricity Board

[1975] ICR 395

at 401, per Phillips J, at 404.

[10]By Rule 68 - 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the Employment Tribunal may, either on its own initiative or on the application of a party, reconsider a Judgment where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. On reconsideration, the Judgment may be confirmed, varied or revoked.

[11]An application for reconsideration shall be presented in writing (and copied to all of the other parties) within 14 days of the date upon which the written record was sent to the parties. In this case the Reserved Judgment was was sent on 29 May 2025. The application is within the time limit.

[12]The procedure upon a reconsideration application is for the Employment Judge that heard the case to consider the application and determine if there are reasonable prospects of the Judgment being varied or revoked. Essentially, this is a reviewing function in which the Employment Judge must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of reconsideration in the interests of justice. There must be some basis for reconsideration. It is insufficient for an applicant to apply simply because he or she disagrees with the decision.

[13]If the Employment Judge considers that there is no such reasonable prospect, then the application shall be refused. Otherwise, the original decision shall be reconsidered at a subsequent reconsideration hearing unless, having considered the written representations, the Employment Judge determines that a hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice. The Employment Judge’s role therefore upon the considering of the application upon the papers initially is to operate as a filter to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked were the matter to be the subject of reconsideration hearing

[14]The Employment Appeal Tribunal has given guidance as to the nature of a request for reconsideration:

[15]Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to seek to re-litigate matters that have already been litigated, or to re-argue matters in a different way or adopting points previously omitted.

[16]There is an underlying public policy principle in all judicial proceedings that there should be finality in litigation, and reconsideration applications are a limited exception to that rule.

[17]It is not a means by which to have a second bite at the cherry, nor is it intended to provide parties with the opportunity of a re-hearing at which the same evidence and the same arguments can be rehearsed but with different emphasis or additional evidence that was previously available being tendered.

[18]Tribunals have a wide discretion whether or not to order reconsideration. Where a matter has been fully ventilated and properly argued, and in the absence of any identifiable administrative error or event occurring after the hearing that requires a reconsideration in the interests of justice, any asserted error of law is to be corrected on appeal and not through the back door by way of a reconsideration application. Reasons for the decisions in the application of the Rules Rule 69

[19]The Reserved Judgment was sent to the Parties on 15 May 2025 and the Claimant made her written application on 29 May 2025. This application was in time.

[20]The application by the Claimant of the 29 May 2025 provides the entire basis of the Claimant’s application. Any further applications for matters to be reconsidered would be out of time and require permission for an extension of time. Rule 70(2)

[21]In consideration of Rule 70(2), this requires a review of the papers. In the circumstances of this application, I am satisfied that it was not an appropriate course of action to reject the reconsideration application as there being no reasonable prospect of success, when the Claimant’s written submissions had not been considered when the Reserved Judgment was written. Without considering her submissions it is simply not possible to make this determination. I am satisfied that a reconsideration is proportionate and fair and in the interests of justice to both parties. Rule 70(3)

[22]The Tribunal wrote to the Parties on 23 July 2025. The Tribunal apologizes to the Parties for this delay. The correspondence to the Parties had been prepared sooner, but due to an error, it was not sent.

[23]The correspondence of the 23 July 2025 informed the Parties a reconsideration has been considered as the Reserved Judgment had been written without sight of the Claimant’s written submissions. It sought written representations from the Parties regarding this reconsideration and the Parties views as to whether the reconsideration could take place without a hearing.

[24]The Claimant wrote to the Tribunal advising that she was too unwell to make further submissions and asked for a hearing.

[25]The Respondent objected to a reconsideration and requested that the reconsideration was rejected as having no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied.

[26]I am satisfied that in the circumstances it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the reconsideration as the Claimant’s written submissions had not been taken into account. This is in favour of the Claimant’s position and no further submissions were required from her to support this decision. I am satisfied that this was a proportionate and fair course of action and that was in the interest of justice for both parties. Rule 70(4)

[27]The reconsideration application was not refused under Rule 70(2). It was therefore a requirement of Rule 70(4) that there would be a reconsideration hearing unless it was not necessary in the interests of justice.

[28]In making the decision to continue to consider the Claimant’s application without a hearing, I have taken into account the following: 28.1. The Claimant’s application is a clear, detailed and well-structured application. It provides full details of the points to be reconsidered. 28.2. The application is founded, in part, on the failure to read the Claimant’s written submissions. I apologize for this failing. 28.3. The Claimant provided full oral submissions at the hearing. These were also clear, detailed and well structured and addressed points that were raised in her cross examination. 28.4. Whilst there was a delay in the first letter being sent to the Parties, the Parties have had the opportunity to make written submissions to the Tribunal. Everything they sent in has been read and taken into consideration. 28.5. It is understood that the Claimant is too unwell to make further submissions. I am satisfied that her original application provides clear, detailed structured submissions as to the basis of her application and that in allowing the consideration application to proceed, there has been no prejudice to her.

[29]I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to both parties and the overriding objective to consider the application without a hearing. It is also in the interests of the Parties that the decision for the application is made as there should be, in so far as possible, finality in litigation. Rule 70(5)

[30]Both Parties views were sought by correspondence to them from the Tribunal dated 04 August 2025. They were informed that the reconsideration would take place without a hearing and given more time for further written submissions, until 11 August 2025.

[31]The time frame given was one week. The Claimant had given full representations in her written reconsideration application. In further correspondence, the Claimant asserted that she was too unwell to make further submissions. The Respondent did not respond further.

[33]As stated above, I am satisfied that her original application provides clear, detailed structured submissions as to the basis of her application and that in allowing the reconsideration application to proceed, there has been no prejudice to her.

[34]I am satisfied that the points of objection raised by the Respondent can be considered in a balanced manner to ensure that neither Party is prejudiced.

[35]I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to both parties and the overriding objective to consider the application without a hearing and without further delay. It is also in the interests of the Parties that the decision for the application is made without further delay as there should be, in so far as possible, finality in litigation.

[36]The reasons for the reconsideration application by the Claimant are, in summary, as follows: 36.1. Procedural Mishaps 36.2. New Evidence 36.3. That the email of the 30 April 2025 @ 0837 was wrongly determined to be inadmissible. Procedural Mishaps Case Management Orders

[37]The hearing of the 28 and 29 April 2024 was the third preliminary hearing in this case. The two previous preliminary hearings on 03 October 2024 and 16 January 2025 had resulted in Case Management Orders. Both sets of Orders required the Claimant to provide medical evidence as to both her alleged disability at the relevant time and for the reasons to support her application to amend, which included a new claim of disability discrimination.

[38]As detailed in the Reserved Judgment, the Claimant only provided limited medical evidence and no GP records for the relevant period.

[39]Within the Case Management Orders of Employment Judge Volkmer of 16 January 2025, it provided a timetable for the hearing and to allow the Claimant 30-minutes for self-re-examination. This stated that this was for the purpose of adding clarity to any questions asked of her during cross examination.

[40]At the outset of the hearing, the Claimant had confirmed that her disability impact statement was her witness statement and that she understood the purposes of the hearing, i.e. to consider both her application to amend and the issue of disability at the relevant time.

[41]I am satisfied that the Claimant understood the purpose of the hearing and had provided a statement and evidence in support of her position. Oath and Hearing Timetable

[42]I have considered the Claimant’ position regarding being under Oath or not.

[43]Having reviewed the hearing notes, the Respondent’s Representative had concluded cross-examination. At this time the Claimant asked for a break and subsequently, the Tribunal were informed that she was too unwell to continue. The hearing was adjourned at 3pm until the following day.

[44]The timetable had provided for 30-minutes for the Claimant to give reexamination and that this was for clarity for questions asked under crossexamination only. I am satisfied that but for the Claimant becoming too unwell to continue, this would have taken place.

[45]The issue of giving evidence whilst under Oath was raised as part of submissions as to the fundamental fairness or unfairness of the email prepared by the Claimant. The issue of not being aware whether the Claimant was under Oath or not, was not raised at the hearing.

[46]The Claimant did not inform the Tribunal that she had called to enquire about whether she was under Oath or not on the morning of the 30 April. I have reconsidered how the proceedings continued and given that the Claimant had produced a statement with assistance and with new evidence, I am satisfied that it was fundamentally unfair to allow this document to be accepted as re-examination. To balance this, the Claimant was permitted to include any points of clarification within her final submissions. Written Submissions

[47]The aim of the hearing was to follow the timetable as provided, however, during the course of the hearing further adjustments were required. This included: 47.1. Breaks for 10-minutes every hour. 47.2. The Claimant had a note taker attend throughout the hearing. 47.3. The Claimant was permitted to be supported by her sister whilst giving evidence. With the Tribunal’s permission, the Claimant’s sister sat with her whilst giving evidence and spoke on her behalf to seek an adjournment if the Claimant became unwell. 47.4. Cross-examination of the Claimant was taken slowly. Counsel was sensitive to the Claimant’s health and at any time a question needed to be repeated, or a break taken, this took place. 47.5. Day 1 of the hearing finished abruptly when the cross-examination finished at 3pm. as the Claimant was unable to continue. The Claimant was informed that the following day would continue as final submissions. 47.6. The Claimant was informed that the final submissions would be adapted to require the Respondent to go first. The Claimant was afforded an extended break to review her submissions prior to giving them. The Claimant was informed that she could include any points of clarification for her own evidence within her submissions. 47.7. The Claimant was afforded more time for her Oral submissions and she provided clear, detailed and well-structured submissions. 47.8. The Parties were offered to provide written submissions. The Respondent confirmed that they would not and the Claimant did not wish to either. I allowed more time for written submissions to be provided if wished. This was until close of business the following day, 01 May 2025 and the Claimant was informed that there was no requirement to submit written submissions, it was her choice and that careful notes of her oral submissions had been made.

Conclusions

[48]I have reviewed the written submissions from the Claimant and the documents above to refresh my memory. I am satisfied that the Claimant did include within her oral submissions’ references to cross examination questions to provide clarification to her evidence and that the written submissions are materially the same.

[49]I am satisfied that the Respondent’s questions in cross examination were not to mislead the Tribunal, but to dispute the evidence and to present the Respondent’s case. I am satisfied that the Claimant used her time for final submissions to present her case fully and provide clarification of her position too.

[50]It has been accepted that the Claimant’s written submissions were not considered prior to the Reserved Judgment being written. They have now been considered and the Judgment reviewed. I am satisfied that the written submissions are fundamentally the same as the clear, detailed and wellstructured oral submissions and that all points raised within the Claimant’s written submissions have now been taken into account.

[51]As explained, I had not been informed that submissions had been received. Irrespective of this, I apologize for the failure to consider the written submissions prior to writing the Reserved Judgment. Order 12

[52]The Claimant was afforded the reasonable adjustments she had requested. These are detailed above. At times she was happy to continue without breaks, at other times she needed more breaks, longer breaks. The hearing was adjourned at 3pm on the first day at the Claimant’s request. Conclusion regarding procedural mishaps

[53]In conclusion, although the procedure may not have been perfect, it was not unfair. I am satisfied that any imperfections did not prevent the Claimant from having the opportunity to present her case fully and fairly. I am also satisfied that the Claimant utilized this opportunity and all points raised by her have been taken into consideration. New Evidence

[54]The Claimant has provided a letter from her GP dated 23 May 2025, which has been prepared for the purpose of this case. The Claimant states that she was unable to provide this previously as she had been unwell and out of the Country.

[55]For new evidence to be included it must not have been available to the Claimant at the time of the preliminary hearing.

[56]I note the following: 56.1. The Claimant had applied for an extension of time to obtain NHS records in November 2024. 56.2. The Claimant had provided a previous GP letter dated 18 October 2025, which did not provide the details as given in this second letter. 56.3. The Claimant’s impact statement of 16 December 2024 confirms that she believes that she has provided all the necessary information.

[57]I am satisfied that the Claimant could have provided this evidence at the time of the preliminary hearing and do not accept it as new evidence. That the email of the 30 April 2025 @ 0837 was wrongly determined to be inadmissible.

[58]On the morning of the second day of the hearing, the Claimant provided a detailed 7-page document, which she asked to be included as part of her statement of evidence. The Claimant had previously confirmed that her statement of evidence was her disability impact statement and the Respondent had prepared their case on this basis.

[59]I heard submissions from both the Claimant and the Respondent in relation to this document, which had been prepared by the Claimant with assistance from family and friends and found that it was fundamentally unfair to continue with that statement as her evidence. The Claimant accepted the decision. Oral reasons were given during the hearing as follows: “The Claimant has provided a new document that was sent to the Tribunal and the Respondent at 0837 this morning. The Claimant is asking the Tribunal to accept this document as her explanation for the questions she was asked yesterday and includes additional information to clarify her answers. It is, in effect, a witness statement after the conclusion of her evidence. The Claimant submits that she was highly triggered yesterday and that the hearing was unfair as she was unable to answer her questions clearly or to the extent that she wanted to. She accepts that the questioning was slow, but she states that it was not slow enough and that there were insufficient breaks that led to her panic attack and the early adjournment of the hearing. She found the day to be traumatic and asks the Tribunal to indulge her with permission for this to be accepted as evidence. The respondent has objected to this document being accepted as evidence for the following reasons: 1. Evidence provides that re-examination may only be related to matters arising out of xx. This is a fundamental principle of evidence. It is also only permitted whilst under Oath. This is simply permitting the Claimant to do re-examination in writing, after the fact of giving evidence and whilst she is not under Oath. The respondent states that this is unfair to allow any litigant to give evidence under Oath, then whilst not under oath, think and discuss and try to improve. That goes to fundamental fairness, it would cut across the fairness of proceedings. This is the reason for wit stats and why warnings are given to witnesses by Judges whilst under oath. This is the obvious reason why that witness statements are not submitted after xx. 2. The respondent accepts that the C may need adjustments, such as additional time, a break or support as in this hearing. In a hearing room, the Claimant would have to apply for permission for sister to support her. The Claimant already has adjustments to assist her. In addition to the breaks and support, the XX was slower and gentler than ordinarily. It is the Claimant’s position in this new wit stat that she doesn’t have a barrister and should be permitted to submit an additional statement now. It is the respondent’s position that all witnesses are alone in the witness box. Even with a team of lawyers, she would not be entitled to do this. 3. The rules apply to LinP in the ordinary way. Baroness Hayle in the Supreme Court says the balance of fairness is disturbed if LinP are entitled to greater indulgence. 4. There is also a line of authority dating back to the 19th Century. By starting this litigation process, the Claimant accepts that by accepting litigation, the Claimant accepts inconvenience or injustice. The respondent asserts that there has been no injustice to the Claimant and she has had indulgence. The Claimant cannot seek to rely on new evidence having completed her evidence. I have reviewed the Claimant’s new document and it does introduce new evidence that was not cross examined upon. Prior to this hearing, the Claimant provided an impact statement. This was a document of some 8-pages and gave the Claimant the opportunity to say whatever she wanted to say in evidence. This document was accepted by the Tribunal as the Claimant’s Evidence in Chief and the Claimant was permitted to rely upon it. Additionally, the respondent has relied upon this document in it’s preparation for this hearing today and cross examination was founded on this document and the Claimant’s disclosure of medical records. In the preparation for this hearing, the Claimant has been free to disclose any document that she wished to rely upon to support her assertion of her disability. She has also been permitted to prepare her impact statement, which the respondent and Tribunal read in preparation for this hearing. The Claimant has asked for adjustments from the Tribunal and these have been forthcoming. Any break that was requested by the Claimant was granted, including an early finish. Additionally, I accept that the cross examination was slow and steady and questions were broken down. Where the Claimant struggled to answer a question, it was repeated or simplified. If needed, the Claimant was permitted to take a break before restarting with the question being repeated. It is a fundamental principle of fairness that an individual giving evidence under Oath gives evidence from agreed documents and answer’s to the best of their abilities on the day. I accept that any witness is alone in the witness box, and whilst the Tribunal permitted the Claimant to have her sister sitting next to her throughout and providing support and a voice, where assistance was required, but the Claimant would always be alone when having to provide her answers to the questions directed at her whilst giving evidence. To accept this document as a new witness statement would take this hearing back to square one as it would be unable to continue as neither the respondent’s representative nor his solicitor have been able to review this. The Tribunal is mindful of the adjustments that have been made for the Claimant, however it would be fundamentally unfair and contrary to the overriding objective to permit the Claimant to introduce a new witness statement at the point of closing submissions, where evidence has been concluded. I do not accept this document as a witness statement for and on behalf of the Claimant. The witness statement and evidence in chief remains the impact statement as prepared by the Claimant before this hearing which is at pages 246 – 254 of the bundle. The document as prepared by the Claimant today is not accepted as evidence. I have considered whether to permit this document as the Claimant’s final submissions, with any new evidence being disregarded. Points within it are addressed in the impact statement and the Claimant was cross examined on her proposed amendments to the List of Issues, and her claim, which are highlighted in the List of Issues whether underlined, highlighted in orange or in red within commentary boxes. The new document is lengthy and expands on the impact statement and gives further evidence. I am satisfied that to make an adjustment to allow this document, even as a closing submission, would cause significant prejudice to the respondent and that this would be an adjustment too far. I do not permit this document to be relied upon. As with any proceedings, the parties may both submit their closing submissions in writing. These submissions are not there to provide new evidence to the Tribunal but to clarify their arguments as to why the Tribunal should be persuaded to accept their position.”

[60]I have reconsidered my decision in relation to this email, and I am satisfied that this was the correct decision taking into the submissions and the circumstances as detailed within the decision above.

[61]In preparing for closing submissions, the order of submissions was changed to allow the Claimant to hear the Respondent’s submissions first. She was also informed that should she wish to include any clarification to any question she had been asked in cross-examination, then she could do so within these submissions. As noted above, I am satisfied that the Claimant did provide clarification in both her oral and written submissions, for example, her use of the word “mysterious” was in reference to questions asked of her by the Respondent’s Counsel during cross-examination. This was a term used by Counsel during cross-examination. Conclusion

[62]I am satisfied that I applied the correct law and procedure in this matter. I took account of the following: 62.1. the balance of injustice/hardship in deciding the issue of disability at the relevant time and the amendment application; 62.2. that the claimant had a reasonable and fair opportunity to discuss her claim and clarify issues at the hearing on 28 April 2025 and again on 29 April 2025; 62.3. that adjustments were made to assist the Claimant throughout; 62.4. that the Claimant had every opportunity to provide evidence and her statements prior to the hearing and that the Case Management Orders did not contradict one another but required the Claimant to evidence her case; and 62.5. That the Claimant provided a disability impact statement and her evidence and understood the purpose of the hearing being to consider both her application to amend and the issue of disability at the relevant time.

[63]The procedure followed during the hearing was adjusted to assist the Claimant. I am satisfied that the Claimant had the opportunity to present her case and to provide clarification for any questions asked of her in crossexamination. Had the Claimant not become unwell, self-re-examination would have followed the cross-examination. However, the Claimant had prepared a new document with assistance that placed the Respondent at a significant disadvantage, which I found amounted to fundamental unfairness. This unfairness, I found, outweighed any disadvantage to the Claimant who was still able to provide the clarification permitted by reexamination, by including this clarification within her closing submissions. I am satisfied that she utilized this opportunity too.

[64]The Claimant’s written submissions have now been considered and all of the above documents read to ensure a full understanding and recollection of the hearing.

[65]I have considered the Claimant’s application and all further correspondence. I am satisfied that I have considered the interests of justice, the overriding objective and the principle that there should, in so far as possible, be finality in litigation.

[66]In conclusion, and having reviewed the above documents, I am satisfied that the original decision in the Reserved Judgment is confirmed.

Background

[1]The Claimant's email of the 13 October 2025 ("Reconsideration Email") as addressed to the East London Employment Tribunal has been referred to me by the Employment Appeal Tribunal by email dated 22 January 2026. It is regrettable that there has been delay in providing a response regarding this request for reconsideration. Unfortunately, the original email was not referred to me at the time and has only recently been sent to me.

[2]I can confirm that I have reviewed the Claimant's application and the Judgment on Reconsideration as sent to the Parties on 29 September 2025 ("Reconsideration Judgment"). I have also reviewed the file and the timeline of documentation to clarify the documents taken into consideration when I made my decisions.

[3]During the course of this response, I will refer to documents. Documents that are repeatedly referred to are as follows: 3.1. "Written Statement" - Written statement prepared by the Claimant following the hearing on 29 April 2025 as considered on 30 April 2025 3.2. "Written Submissions" - Written submissions received from the Claimant dated 30 April 2025, as received 04 May 2025 3.3. "Reserved Judgment" - Written reserved Judgment dated 07 May 2025 as sent to the parties on 15 May 2025 3.4. "Case Management Orders" - Case management orders prepared following the Reserved Judgment, dated 07 May 2025 and as sent to the Parties on 15 May 2025 3.5. "Reconsideration Application" - Email from the Claimant requesting reconsideration of the Reserved Judgment dated 29 May 2025 3.6. Notice of Listing hearing dated 30 May 2025 3.7. "Postponement Request" - Email from the Claimant requesting postponement of the listing hearing dated 11 July 2025 and subsequent emails on 07 and 11 August 2025 3.8. "Reconsideration Judgment" - Judgment following reconsideration dated 18 August 2025 as sent to the Parties on 29 September 2025 3.9. "Reconsideration Email" - Email from the Claimant requesting further reconsideration dated 13 October 2025. Paragraphs 1 - 6 (Reconsideration Email)

[4]In considering paragraphs 1 - 6 of the Reconsideration Email with regards to the request for "second reconsideration" as detailed by the Claimant, this is the application the Claimant states is outstanding, which is the reconsideration application regarding the decision to progress with the Reconsideration Application without a hearing and without postponing it due to the Claimant's ill health. This was addressed in paragraph 7 of the Reconsideration Judgement which states: The Claimant’s email of the 11 July 2025 is an application for the postponement of the listing hearing currently listed for 01 October 2025. This email has been located and will be considered as a matter of urgency.

[5]In determining that the Claimant's email of the 11 July 2025 requesting a postponement of the Listing Hearing remained outstanding, I addressed this directly with the Listing team. The Listing Hearing was postponed and relisted for 25 March 2026. This Notice of Hearing was sent to the Parties on 30 September 2025.

[6]Additionally, the request for a postponement of the Reconsideration Application was considered and is detailed in paragraphs 3 - 7 of the Reconsideration Judgment, which gives my reason for the decision to continue.

[7]In preparing for the reconsideration of the Reserved Judgment of the 15 May 2025, I had regard to Rule 68 - 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. As detailed within the Reconsideration Judgment of 29 September 2025 at paragraphs 19 - 35, the Parties were offered the opportunity to provide written submissions. By email of 31 July 2025 the Claimant did state as follows: Thank you for your letter dated 23 July 2025. I refer you back to my Application for Postponement by Letter dated 11 July 2025. Please note, I have not yet received a response to this letter. Ordinarily, I would have liked to have the opportunity to respond to the Employment Tribunal as ordered but I am not able to do this due to medical reasons as expressed in my postponement letter sent to the Tribunal on 11 July 2025 and to the Respondent’s Counsel. I reserve my right, if necessary, to provide views as requested by the Employment Tribunal.

The Law

[8]In writing to the Parties on 23 July 2025, I confirmed that the reason that the Reconsideration Application dated 29 May 2025 was permitted was because the Reserved Judgment had been written without sight of the Claimant's Written Submissions. This is detailed in paragraph 23. Further to the Claimant's email of the 31 July 25, and the Respondent's written submissions, given that the basis of the reconsideration was to ensure that the Claimant's Written Submissions were properly taken into account, I determined that it was proportionate and fair and in the interests of justice to proceed without a hearing. This would ensure that the Claimant's Written Submissions and Reconsideration Application would be fully considered in a timely and proportionate manner. This is detailed in paragraphs 27 - 29 of the Reconsideration Judgment. On 04 August 2025 I wrote to the Parties to confirm that the reconsideration would be conducted without a hearing and the Parties were permitted to submit further written submissions, if they wished to do so. On the 07 and 11 August 2025 the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal to follow up the email of the 11 July, the Postponement Request. I considered this request in relation to the Reconsideration Application and determined that because of the reasons already given, it remained fair and proportionate and in the interests of justice to continue with the Claimant's Reconsideration Application and to do so, without a hearing.

[9]The Claimant has raised several sections within this Reconsideration Email. I have reviewed this email and I confirm the following with regards to the information I had available at the time the Reconsideration Judgment was made to enable the decisions to be made at that time. The Parties were provided with the opportunity to provide submissions and the Claimant did so in her Reconsideration Application and by the consideration of her Written Submissions, which had not been taken into account when the Reserved Judgment was written.

[10]I address each of the Claimant's applications within her Reconsideration Email in turn: Court Transcript

[11]The request for a Court Transcript was made to REJ Burgher. I make no comment in regard to any decision I did not make. Procedural Failings

[12]At paragraphs 14 - 16 of the Reconsideration Email, the Claimant makes reference to the transcript. Again, I make no comment in regard to any decision I did not make.

[13]In considering paragraphs 17 - 18 of Reconsideration Email, the Paragraphs 37 - 41 of the Reconsideration Judgment addressed the reconsideration of the case management orders as prepared by EJ's Hook and Volkmer. In making this decision, I had regard to both sets of case management orders at the time the Reserved Judgment was prepared and in preparing the Reconsideration Judgment. I also had regard to the bundle and my hearing notes and the Claimant's Written Submissions, which was the only reason for the reconsideration progressing.

[14]In considering paragraphs 19 - 26 of the Reconsideration Email, paragraphs 42 - 46 of the Reconsideration Judgement considers the Oath and Hearing Timetable. In making this decision, I had regard to the bundle and my hearing notes, the Claimant's Written Submissions and the previous case management orders for both the Reserved Judgment and the Reconsideration Judgment.

[15]In considering paragraph 27 - 28 of the Reconsideration Email, paragraphs 47 - 51 of the Reconsideration Judgment addresses Written Submissions. In making this decision, I again had regard to the bundle and my hearing notes, the Claimant's Written Submissions and the previous case management orders for both the Reserved Judgment and the Reconsideration Judgment. As detailed within these paragraphs, I also took into account the Claimant's email of the 11 July 2025, which had not otherwise been progressed. I was aware that the Claimant stated that she was unwell and I made a preliminary decision whether to proceed with the reconsideration at this time. This is detailed in paragraphs 4 - 6 and 27 - 29 of the Reconsideration Judgment. At the time, I was satisfied that the Claimant had had the opportunity to provide Written Submissions following the hearing and her Reconsideration Application, given that the reason for the reconsideration was my failure to consider her Written Submissions, it was fair and proportionate and in the interests of justice to properly consider these Written Submissions and to ensure that the Reserved Judgment took these into account.

[16]In considering the second paragraph 28 of the Reconsideration Email, I note that paragraph 46 of the Reconsideration Judgment addresses the Written Statement produced by the Claimant overnight between the hearing days. In making this decision, I reviewed the hearing notes and the Reserved Judgment, alongside the Claimant's Written Submissions. The hearing notes refer to the Claimant calling for external advice to clarify her queries, she also had assistance from her sister and a note taker. The key issue was that the additional document had been prepared following the conclusion of cross examination. This is referred to at paragraph 23 of the Reserved Judgment. The oral reasons for this decision were included in the Reconsideration Judgment at paragraph 59.

[17]I have reviewed the Reserved Judgment and there is no paragraph 48.4. I have searched for any reference to "help", and I can find none. Paragraph 59 does refer to the assistance from friends and family. This is a reference to assistance from the Claimant's sister and notetaker. The decision at paragraph 59 - 61 of the Reconsideration Judgement is Meek Compliant.

[18]Paragraph 29 of the Reconsideration Email is addressed in paragraphs 19 - 25 of the Reconsideration Judgment. In making this decision, I had regard to the Tribunal file, both the Claimant's and the Respondent's written submissions, the Reconsideration Application, Written Submissions and the hearing notes. As explained above, I was satisfied that in providing a detailed Reconsideration Application, it was fair and proportionate to proceed as the reason for the reconsideration being permitted was because of my failure to read the Written Submissions prior to writing the Reserved Judgment.

[19]Regarding paragraph 30 of the Reconsideration Email, the decision in relation to paragraph 56.3 of the Reconsideration Judgment was made with regard to the bundle and my hearing notes, the impact statement, the Reserved Judgment and Written Submissions. I note that the Claimant confirmed in oral evidence that the impact statement was her Evidence in Chief, she had also confirmed that it remained correct. The Claimant confirmed in response to my question, after cross examination by the Respondent's Counsel, that all the medical documents the Claimant wished to rely upon had been disclosed and were in the bundle. This is the information was also taken into consideration when making this decision.

[20]Paragraphs 31 of the Reconsideration Email in relation to the hearing itself, were addressed within paragraph 47 of the Reconsideration Judgment. In making this decision I had regard to the previous case management orders, the Reserved Judgment and my hearing notes. The hearing was not as timetabled due to the requirement to take additional breaks and to provide time to allow the Claimant time to prepare as explained within the Reconsideration Judgment. Additionally, the hearing notes for the 29 April 2025 record that following cross examination, the Claimant was given the opportunity to have time to prepare her final submissions. She asked for more time following this break but was subsequently unable to return and the hearing was adjourned and reconvened on the morning of 30 April 2025.

[21]The hearing notes of 29 April 2025 do not refer to the Claimant being offered the opportunity for self-re-examination, nor is the Oath referred too. Cross examination was complete and the Claimant was then informed that she would have further time to prepare her final submissions following the Respondent's submissions and that she should include any clarification she wished in relation to the arguments she wished to put forward. The Claimant was provided with this preparation time and gave full and detailed oral submissions with further breaks included. At the time I prepared the Reserved Judgment, I had had regard to these notes and I was satisfied that the Claimant had addressed questions raised by the Respondent's Counsel and that she had repeated his phraseology, for example the word "mysterious" to reflect this. At the time I prepared the Reconsideration Judgment, I also had regard to the Written Submissions, which also reflected rebuttal of points raised in cross examination. These are detailed in the Reserved Judgment at paragraph 25 and the Reconsideration Judgment at paragraph 61 respectively.

[22]Paragraph 32 of the Reconsideration Email in relation to the manner of cross examination was also reviewed as part of the Reconsideration Judgment at paragraph 47.4. In making this decision, I had regard to the hearing notes, which included both Parties closing submissions where cross examination and the manner of it, by way of a reasonable adjustment, was specifically addressed.

[23]Paragraph 33 of the Reconsideration Email is addressed in the Reconsideration Judgment at paragraphs 54 - 57. In making this decision, I had regard to the bundle, the hearing notes, the Claimant's reconsideration application, where the document is referred to as "New Evidence". The decision was that this New Evidence could have been available at the time of the hearing, and as such it could not be relied upon after the hearing. The details for this decision are in the Reconsideration Judgment at paragraphs 54 - 57.

[24]At each stage I have endeavoured to provide reasons for my decisions as set out the above as further information. I have addressed the points raised by the Claimant in relation to Meek compliance and I am satisfied that the decisions made at the time and with the evidence available to me were fair and proportionate and in the interests of justice.

[25]In accordance with Rule 70, I consider the Claimant's Reconsideration Email as an application for reconsideration on the Reconsideration Judgment. Having considered the Reconsideration Email and the above, I do not consider that there is a reasonable prospect of the Reconsideration Judgment being varied or revoked and the application by the Claimant in the Reconsideration Email is refused. Approved by: