Case 2301582/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James McLanaghan v SE Trains Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301582/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James McLanaghan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 26 February 2024, Employment Judge Fowell found that the claimant was disabled, with anxiety and depression and bereavement, from the date of his suspension on 30 May 2022 until his dismissal on 20 April 2023. The judgment was on a preliminary issue rather than the full merits of the case.
The tribunal struck out allegations (a) to (e) because there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant satisfying the tribunal that they had been brought in time. Those allegations included complaints about a colleague leaving him to clean human waste, being told he did not need to work overtime or extra Sundays because he received PIP, being required to fix ticket machines, being threatened with disciplinary action for leaving shifts early, and a failure to make a reasonable adjustment to avoid standing throughout his full nine-hour shift.
The judgment did not determine liability on the remaining claims. It stated that the claimant’s remaining claims would proceed to a hearing listed for 3 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal struck out allegations (a) to (e) as having no reasonable prospect of being shown to have been presented in time, including the reasonable-adjustment allegation at 2(e). The remaining claims were listed to proceed. | Struck out | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.