Case 1600074/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Stangroom-Teel v Leonard Cheshire Disability Considered: In Chambers - Mold — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600074/2024
- Decision date
- 18 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Stangroom-Teel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn chambers on 7 October 2024, Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan considered the claimant's written application for reconsideration of the tribunal's 17 July 2024 decision refusing certain applications to amend her claim. The original decision had allowed the claimant to provide further and better particulars and indicated that some rejected amendments might be revisited if supported by grievance documentation, but the reconsideration application was made after the claimant's further material and the respondent's written opposition had been received.
The tribunal refused reconsideration. It held that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the application and that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judge found that the further particulars and supporting documentation did not provide the specificity required to justify the new allegations, including those dependent on direct quotations.
The tribunal relied on the rationale in the original decision and accepted the respondent's submissions opposing reconsideration. The result was that the earlier refusals to allow the amendments remained in place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Decision on the claimant's application dated 9 August 2024 for reconsideration of the tribunal's 17 July 2024 refusal of certain amendment applications; not a substantive liability determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- interests of justice
- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
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.