Mr Khalid Manzoor v Engage Education and 3 others — 2026

Mr Manzoor applied for reconsideration of the judgment dated 21 May 2026 and promulgated on 28 May 2026. That judgment had struck out his direct race discrimination and religion or belief discrimination claims in their entirety under rules 38(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal refused reconsideration because the grounds disclosed no error or misdirection, the information could have been provided at the preliminary hearing, and it provided no factual basis for a different decision.

The claims concerned an allegation that Engage Education failed to provide a reference to The Quest Academy, after which Quest withdrew an employment offer, and that this appeared to have been connected to Mr Manzoor's race and perceived religion. The Tribunal recorded the respondents' account that Quest requested a reference on 14 May 2024, Mr Manzoor said the following day that the offer had been withdrawn and a reference was no longer required, and the respondents had not communicated with Quest about him. It also recorded that the respondents' policy was to issue factual references within up to 28 days and that no safeguarding issue applied.

The Tribunal found that, during approximately 18 months following presentation of the ET1, Mr Manzoor had provided no further evidence or information particularising an act by Quest or the respondents capable of showing detriment connected with race, religion or belief. It accepted the respondents' representations at the preliminary hearing and concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The reconsideration application contained only an assertion that supporting evidence existed and did not supply that evidence, so it provided no basis to revisit that conclusion.

The Tribunal also maintained its findings that Mr Manzoor had failed actively to pursue the claims and that his conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable. It found that his reliance on illness, isolation, lack of legal knowledge and possible settlement discussions did not explain why evidence he said he possessed had not been supplied. The electronic file contained ACAS certificates for all four respondents recording unsuccessful conciliation attempts, so the assertion that he had not heard from ACAS about a settlement offer did not support reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the GP letter established that Mr Manzoor had depression and had received medication and counselling, but did not establish that he could not attend the video hearing on 19 May 2026. His other information about travel and his mother's death did not provide mitigating circumstances or new information justifying his non-attendance. The Tribunal therefore held that reconsideration was not necessary in the interests of justice under rule 68(1) and was not consistent with the overriding objective in rule 3. The application was refused and dismissed, and no monetary remedy was awarded; the reference to nearly £2,000 was an assertion in the reconsideration grounds rather than an adjudicated award.