Case 3332877/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Amadi v Mitie Limited — 2020

Case reference: 3332877/2018
Decision date: 24 September 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Quill
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Amadi

Respondent

Mitie Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Quill, sitting alone, considered whether earlier decisions by EJ Kurrein concerning Claim 1 should be varied or revoked. The tribunal declined to vary or revoke the decision that Claim 1, as presented, did not include disability discrimination complaints, and also declined to vary or revoke the case management decision that permission to amend was required if the claimant sought to add such complaints.

The tribunal also declined to vary or revoke the earlier refusal of permission to amend Claim 1, and declined to vary or revoke the deposit order decision. The judgment records that those decisions therefore stood, subject to the extension of time subsequently granted in relation to the deposit order.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal did not determine the merits of a disability discrimination complaint. It declined to vary or revoke earlier decisions that Claim 1 did not include disability discrimination complaints, that permission to amend was required, and that permission to amend was refused.	Other	Disability	—
Other	The tribunal declined to vary or revoke EJ Kurrein's deposit order decision made on 31 March 2020 and sent to the parties on 24 September 2020. The text does not identify the underlying claim to which the deposit order related.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.