Case 3322658/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Owen v And R1 – Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited R2 – Mr Jim Shaughnessy DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL AND RECONSIDERATION Under Rules 70-73 of Schedule 1 to the — 2017
- Case reference
- 3322658/2016
- Decision date
- 27 January 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the original hearing on 12-16 December 2016, Employment Judge Vowles sat with Ms Breslin and Ms Edwards and determined Mr Owen's claims of direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The majority reserved judgment was sent on 27 January 2017 and stated that all claims failed. A first reconsideration application was refused on 30 March 2017.
The second reconsideration application, dated 8 June 2018, relied on metadata said to show that the AMEC Global Assignment Policy document was created on 26 August 2015 rather than having come into force in February 2015. The claimant said this undermined paragraph 16 of the original reasons and indicated misleading or dishonest evidence. The respondent said the judgment was concerned with the Healix pre-assignment medical procedure, not a new policy, and that the metadata point would not affect the outcome. The tribunal accepted the respondent's position that, even if the date were correct, it did not demonstrate fraud or wrongdoing and would not have altered the result because the claimant was not identified for the Dubai assignment until September 2015.
On the recusal application, the tribunal found no realistic prospect of the judge being called as a witness in criminal proceedings and held that the matters relied on did not establish apparent bias. It applied the Porter v Magill fair-minded and informed observer test and noted Rule 72(3) of the 2013 Rules, which ordinarily places preliminary reconsideration before the original judge where practicable. On reconsideration, the tribunal referred to Rule 70, Rule 71, Rule 72, Trimble v Supertravel Ltd, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council v Marsden, emphasised finality in litigation, and concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The applications for recusal and reconsideration were refused on 18 September 2019.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010; the original January 2017 reserved judgment found the claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination under s.19 Equality Act 2010; the original January 2017 reserved judgment found the claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20 Equality Act 2010; the original January 2017 reserved judgment found the claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Porter v Magill fair-minded and informed observer test
- Rule 70 interests of justice
- Rule 71 reconsideration application time limit
- Rule 72 no reasonable prospect of variation or revocation
- Rule 72(3) preliminary consideration by the original judge
- Trimble v Supertravel Ltd
- Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council v Marsden
- Rule 5 extension of time
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.