Mr Shaun Cheesman v Countrywide Estate Agents Limited RECONSIDERATION — 2021

Mr Shaun Cheesman had brought an earlier claim, 3201008/2020, against Countrywide Estate Agents Limited alleging disability discrimination arising from a job advertisement that required applicants to hold a full driving licence. He said that, because of a visual impairment, he had a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and could not meet that requirement. In the first claim, Employment Judge Tobin struck out the section 15 and reasonable adjustments complaints, made deposit orders on the direct and indirect discrimination claims, and when those deposits were not paid the whole of the first claim was struck out.

Mr Cheesman then presented a second claim, 3200185/2021, on 18 January 2021. Regional Employment Judge Taylor rejected that ET1 as an abuse of process. The tribunal noted that the administrative letter initially gave the wrong reason, saying the tribunal had no jurisdiction, but that was corrected when the reconsideration application was listed for hearing. The hearing on the reconsideration application was converted from CVP to a telephone hearing because the claimant said he had no video camera.

On the merits of the reconsideration application, the tribunal applied rule 12 and rule 13 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 and the principle in Henderson v Henderson. It held that the second ET1 simply re-presented the same matters already dealt with in the first proceedings and that the claimant had not identified any new act of discrimination after the first claim. The continuing failure to revert to him about suitable jobs was not treated as a fresh act without some further reconsideration or event being pleaded.

The tribunal concluded that REJ Taylor had been right to reject the second claim form because it was an attempt to bypass the earlier strike-out and deposit orders. The claimant's application for reconsideration was dismissed. The judge also indicated that, if the claimant wished to pursue the issues further, he would need to challenge the earlier decisions by reconsideration or appeal, and referred to Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons in that context.