Case 3303706/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Casserley, Counsel For the v Mr Gray - Counsel — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303706/2020
- Decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Casserley, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on an application to amend, not a final merits decision. Employment Judge Postle sat alone at Norwich on 17 February 2022. The Claimant, Mr J Rackham, applied to amend the claim dated 4 May 2021 so as to add Equality Act 2010 claims for indirect discrimination under section 19 and failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 20.
The tribunal granted the application to amend. The judgment records that the new Equality Act claims were permitted to be added to the proceedings. No findings are made in this short judgment about whether either proposed claim succeeds on its merits, and no remedy is awarded.
The only legal issue decided in the judgment is the amendment application itself. The text does not set out the detailed reasoning for granting the amendment beyond the order made, and it does not record any lay members because the hearing was before Employment Judge Postle alone.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Claimant's application dated 4 May 2021 to amend the claim to include indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 was granted. The judgment does not determine the merits of the proposed claim. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Claimant's application dated 4 May 2021 to amend the claim to include failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 was granted. The judgment does not determine the merits of the proposed claim. | Upheld | 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.
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.