Case 2305181/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Tamponi v Medequip Assistive Technology Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305181/2021
- Decision date
- 6 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Tamponi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied on 20 September 2022 for reconsideration of the case management order of 5 September 2022, which had required the respondent to provide a draft list of issues by 6 January 2023 and the parties to agree that list by 17 February 2023. The tribunal held that reconsideration under rules 70 to 74 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 applies to judgments, and that the application could not succeed because the order challenged was a consent order.
The tribunal considered the claimant's points insofar as they could be understood, but did not engage in detail with the proposed list of issues because it considered that it contained lengthy narrative material that was not appropriate for inclusion in a list of issues. It also said that it did not intend to intrude on the parties' discussions about the contents of the list, given that those discussions were to be concluded by 17 February 2023.
On the claimant's comments about burden of proof, the tribunal stated that his view that the burden on fairness of dismissal should remain on the respondent was incorrect, because the burden was neutral. It also stated that, in relation to discrimination, the initial burden is on the claimant and may then shift to the respondent. The application for reconsideration was therefore refused as not competent, and the claimant's complaint about the issues was rejected.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application dated 20 September 2022 for reconsideration of the case management order dated 5 September 2022; the tribunal refused it because it was not competent and rejected the claimant's complaint about the issues. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, rules 70 to 74
- necessary in the interests of justice
- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
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
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.