Shane Maltby v Chestnut Inns Limited

An employment tribunal must determine claims which emerge objectively from the parties’ pleadings and remain pursued. Its role is nevertheless arbitral, not inquisitorial. It has no general duty to prompt an unrepresented party to expand or alter their case for that party’s advantage.

The appropriate assistance to a litigant in person depends on the circumstances and is constrained by impartiality. A failure to identify an unpleaded claim will amount to an error of law only rarely, including where the claim is so obvious that failure to raise it is perverse. A reconsideration is not ordinarily available to advance a new case or evidence which could and should have been raised at the original hearing.

The claimant, a litigant in person, brought claims following his summary dismissal as a head chef. His claim included disability discrimination. At preliminary hearings he identified a number of alleged impairments. The Employment Tribunal found that none made him disabled at the material time and dismissed the disability-discrimination complaint. It later refused reconsideration.

The claimant did not challenge the findings on the impairments considered by the Tribunal. He appealed on the basis that the Tribunal should have identified, or asked whether he relied upon, a longstanding left forearm and hand impairment described as claw syndrome. He also contended that his mental ill health required further proactive assistance, and that reconsideration should have been granted.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal did not err in failing to treat claw syndrome as a further claimed disability at the substantive hearing.

2. Applying [2025] EWCA Civ 185, the starting point was an objective analysis of the statements of case. The claimant had identified IBD, a hand burn, PTSD, a seizure, medication, asthma and obesity at various stages, but never identified claw syndrome as a disability on which he relied. References to an earlier ulnar nerve injury in medical material, an impact statement and messages did not make such a claim clear or obvious.

3. The Tribunal had provided a fair opportunity for the claimant to clarify his case. Both employment judges had proactively discussed the impairments relied upon, recorded the resulting issues, and permitted an amendment adding further alleged disabilities. In the circumstances, neither a written direction to particularise disabilities nor an agreed list of issues was required.

4. The evidence of mental ill health did not create a duty to make further enquiries. There was no request for a postponement or evidence that the claimant could not participate fairly. The evidence did not establish that PTSD caused the asserted forgetfulness, and the claimant had in fact identified numerous impairments. It was therefore not unfair to refrain from asking whether an unraised longstanding hand condition was also relied upon.

5. The reconsideration application could be read as asserting that the earlier injury had permanently disabled the claimant. Even so, reconsideration was not required in the interests of justice. The claimant had already had a fair opportunity to identify that case and obtain relevant medical evidence. Reconsideration was not a means to advance a new argument or evidence which should have been deployed at the original hearing. The Tribunal was also entitled to reject the contention that claw syndrome made the burn impairment long-term.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed: [2025] EAT 130.
• Employment Tribunal: at a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled at the material time and dismissed the disability-discrimination complaint. It subsequently refused reconsideration.