Case 2205536/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Jiang v Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205536/2018
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Jiang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 20 October 2020 Employment Judge Quill refused Ms Jiang's application dated 10 March 2020, sent by email on 12 March 2020, for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 26 February 2020. The tribunal said the new evidence mentioned could have been obtained in time for the original hearing. It also said that medical evidence had already been considered, and that it had found Ms Jiang met the definition of disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal noted that she had been a litigant in person with support from her husband, and that breaks were available during the hearing.
The tribunal said the reconsideration application misquoted paragraph 130. It restated its conclusion that the dismissal was because of absence, but the absence was not because of disability. In the tribunal's view, further investigation by the appeal officer was unlikely to produce evidence showing that the failure to attend work on 26 April 2017 was caused by disability, and Ms Jiang had not satisfied the tribunal that her absence from work was something which arose in consequence of her disability. The tribunal also said the ACAS early conciliation issue had been addressed and did not prevent it dealing with the substantive issues on their merits, and that its reasoning remained as set out in the written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | This judgment refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of the judgment sent on 26 February 2020. In the reasons, the tribunal restated its earlier conclusion that the claimant met the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability, but that the dismissal was because of absence and not because of disability, and that the claimant had not shown the absence arose in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
- something arising in consequence of disability
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.