Case 6007901/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Johnson v Transport for London — 2023
- Case reference
- 6007901/2024
- Decision date
- 22 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a disability discrimination claim alleging failure to make reasonable adjustments. The alleged PCP was the Conditions of Fitness requirement for black cabs to have a tight turning circle, which the claimant said placed him at a substantial disadvantage because of his admitted physical impairments.
The tribunal found that the current claim was not barred by cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel because it concerned a different PCP from the earlier claim about wheelchair accessibility. However, it found that the turning circle issue was directly related to the earlier proceedings, was known to the claimant, and could with reasonable diligence have been raised in that claim.
Taking account of the public and private interests, including the need for care before striking out a discrimination claim and the public interest in finality of litigation, the tribunal concluded that the present claim contravened the rule in Henderson v Henderson. The claim was struck out as an abuse of process.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim for disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments was struck out as an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- res judicata
- cause of action estoppel
- issue estoppel
- Henderson v Henderson
- Jones v Mid-Glamorgan
- James v Public Health Wales NHS Trust
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.