Case 1602114/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Edwards v Stark Building Materials UK Ltd t/a Jewsons — 2025
- Case reference
- 1602114/2025
- Decision date
- 2 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Edwards
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for reconsideration of a judgment that he was not disabled at the relevant time due to a mental impairment. The tribunal refused the application, finding there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, and confirmed the judgment of 14 November 2025.
The tribunal considered the claimant's procedural complaints about the preliminary hearing, including issues about the bundle, tribunal emails, evidence, case law, breaks, and the conduct of the hearing. It concluded that none of the grounds raised had any reasonable prospect of success and that the claimant had been able to participate and present his case.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment refused reconsideration and confirmed the earlier judgment that the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time. It states that the disability-related harassment claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The PDF text provided is truncated. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 rules 68 to 70
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Goodwin questions
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.