Case 1307865/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Birmingham Women’s And Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and Unison — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307865/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chivers Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's application dated 8 November 2024 for reconsideration of the judgment dated 26 September 2024 was refused. The tribunal held that the amended request was out of time under rule 71 because a reconsideration application cannot be expanded outside the 14-day limit, and the claimant had already made and lost a previous reconsideration application.
The tribunal said there was no requirement to answer every point raised, but it noted that the claimant was in substance trying to reopen issues already decided and to add material that had not been before the tribunal, including screenshots from his NHS app and other documents that could with reasonable diligence have been produced earlier. It said reconsideration is not a rehearing and that the proper route for challenging the earlier findings was appeal.
On the underlying disability issue, the tribunal recorded that it had considered the claimant's witness statement, medical evidence, oral evidence and submissions, and had found that he was not suffering from an impairment until January 2023. It had also considered whether any earlier adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities was substantial and long term, but concluded that it was not. The tribunal therefore said the claimant's disability discrimination claims were dismissed, and it refused reconsideration because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and finality required refusal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment says the claimant's disability discrimination claims were dismissed because the tribunal had already found he was not a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010. It found no impairment until January 2023 and no substantial, long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities before then. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 71 ET Rules
- rule 72(1) ET Rules
- Equality Act 2010 disability definition
- substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.