Case 2600797/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Sheldon v Tec Reports Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600797/2019
- Decision date
- 20 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Sheldon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote CVP hearing on 29 March 2021 before Employment Judge Blackwell sitting alone. The judgment did not determine the merits of Mr Sheldon’s substantive claims; it dealt only with an application that the judge recuse himself.
The application arose because Mr Taylor, who was a witness for Mr Sheldon in these proceedings, had previously brought a case against the same respondent that Judge Blackwell heard on 3 and 4 January 2019. In that earlier case the judge made a number of findings of fact that depended on his assessment of the credibility of Mr Griffin and Mrs Davies, and he said he had also been critical of Mr Griffin in the written reasons.
The judge recorded the recusal test as whether the hearing was free from apparent bias, assessed by asking whether the circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. He concluded that, on balance, he should recuse himself because of the adverse view he had taken of the credibility of Mr Griffin and Ms Davies in the earlier Taylor case, and because his recollection of that case had returned as he read the reasons again.
The judge also invited the parties to consider judicial mediation, but Mr Sheldon did not wish to engage, so that was not pursued. The only order in the judgment was that the judge recuse himself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment was an application for recusal and did not determine any substantive employment claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- apparent bias / fair-minded and informed observer test
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.