Case 2300837/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Michaels v London Fire Commissioner — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300837/2021
- Decision date
- 9 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham KC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paul Michaels
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered whether the Claimant had capacity to participate in the employment tribunal proceedings. A previous preliminary hearing had led to the instruction of Dr Amir Bashir, consultant psychiatrist, to provide an opinion on capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Dr Bashir diagnosed the Claimant as suffering from Persistent Paranoid Delusional Disorder and concluded that, because his judgment was seriously affected by delusions and hallucinations, he was unable to weigh relevant information as part of making decisions about the proceedings. The Tribunal accepted the unchallenged expert opinion and found that the Claimant lacked capacity as defined in sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The Claimant accepted Dr Bashir's findings at the hearing and understood that he would need help from a litigation friend or representation for there to be a fair hearing of his claim. The judgment states that those matters were addressed in an accompanying case management order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a preliminary hearing decision on the Claimant's capacity to participate in the proceedings, not a determination of the substantive unfair dismissal or disability discrimination claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Mental Capacity Act 2005 ss.2, 3
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.