Case 6022593/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Roy Barber v DWP — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022593/2024
- Decision date
- 3 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Roy Barber
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned Roy Barber's application dated 13 March 2026 for reconsideration of a judgment dated 11 March 2026. The earlier judgment had refused his application to amend his claim to add section 13 and section 15 Equality Act 2010 claims relying on disability. This reconsideration judgment did not determine the merits of those proposed disability claims or any wages claim.
The Tribunal recorded that the reconsideration application was made within the required time limits, but found that it had no reasonable prospect of success under rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The claimant argued that the Tribunal had made errors in construing the claim form, misapplied Selkent, and failed to apply the Equal Treatment Bench Book. The Tribunal concluded that there had been no procedural error, that the applicable law had been applied correctly, and that both parties had a fair opportunity to present or defend the amendment application.
The Tribunal stated that the reconsideration process was not a quasi-appeal on a point of law and that the claimant was seeking to re-argue the amendment application. It refused reconsideration, held that there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked, and stated that the application stood dismissed. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment decided a reconsideration application, not the merits of the underlying claim. The claimant sought reconsideration of a judgment refusing permission to amend to add section 13 and section 15 Equality Act 2010 disability claims; the reconsideration application was refused and stood dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 68 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 69 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 70 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Outasight VB Limited v Brown 2013 ICR 111
- Trimble v Supertravel Limited 1982 IRLR 451
- Selkent
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.