Case 1804434/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Fields v The Sheffield College — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804434/2021
- Decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Knowles JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Fields
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 28 February 2022, sitting on paper, Employment Judge Knowles refused the Claimant's in-time application for reconsideration of the order sent on 21 January 2022. The earlier order had declined the Claimant's application to amend his complaint to add discrimination, and at that stage he had not identified any protected characteristic.
On reconsideration the Claimant said he had since taken further advice and seen his GP and wanted to bring a complaint based on disability. The tribunal held that proceedings require finality and that reconsideration should not be used for a second bite at the cherry, citing Todd t/a Hygia Professional Training v Cutter. It found that the Claimant had had a fair opportunity to address points of substance, that his amendment application still did not explain any link between the treatment complained of and a protected characteristic, and that there was no reasonable prospect of the earlier decision being varied or revoked.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for reconsideration of the refusal to amend to add a discrimination complaint; the tribunal refused reconsideration. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.