Case 6008341/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Velichov v Persimmon Homes Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008341/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Velichov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for reconsideration of a judgment sent on 5 November 2025. That earlier judgment had found that he was disabled at the relevant time due to back pain/Spondylitis, but not due to depression and anxiety or joint and muscle pain/neuropathic pain before 23 June 2024.
The claimant relied on October 2025 medical evidence relating to fibromyalgia and argued that it might have affected the conclusion on joint and muscle pain/neuropathic pain. The tribunal found that the evidence post-dated the July 2025 hearing and concerned the claimant's condition in 2025, not the relevant period before his employment ended on 23 June 2024.
The tribunal concluded that the new evidence would not have made any difference to the disability conclusions and that there were no reasonable prospects of the judgment being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment decides only the claimant's application for reconsideration of an earlier disability-status judgment; it refuses reconsideration. The underlying Equality Act disability issue is described as context, but the final claim type adjudicated in this document is the reconsideration application. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Part 12 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 68
- interests of justice
- reasonable prospects of the Judgment being varied or revoked
- Equality Act 2010 definition of 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.