Mayanja v City of Bradford and Metropolitan District Council

Mr Mayanja, who identifies as Black African, applied for a role with City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. He asserted that he had been offered and accepted a job as Refugee and New Communications Integration officer in October 2021. The Council claimed he had been informed he was the preferred candidate and was in an ongoing selection process.  During that process, the Council maintained that he made misleading statements and was removed from the recruitment process. He brought claims for breach of contract, race discrimination, victimisation and harassment.

 

  The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding him an unreliable witness and preferring the evidence of the recruiting manager. A key reason was its conclusion that no job offer had been made. The Tribunal also awarded £2,000 costs against Mr Mayanja, stating he had fabricated the harassment claim and knowingly constructed the contract claim on an untruthful basis. 

 

After the hearing, Mr Mayanja discovered an email on his computer from the manager stating, “I’m pleased to say we’d like to offer you the job.” He applied to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. 

 

Key Issues 

Fresh Evidence and Credibility 

The Tribunal admitted the email for the costs reconsideration, finding that there was an equal obligation on both parties to have disclosed the email earlier in the proceedings.  However, while the tribunal accepted that Mr Mayanja had not fabricated that an offer of employment had been made it treated the application as limited to costs. It reduced the costs award to £200 but concluded that the manager was mistaken rather than dishonest.  As such, it did not consider her overall credibility was undermined and in any event it maintained its finding that Mr Manyanja had made up his harassment claim.

Failure to Reconsider Liability Judgment 

The EAT held the Tribunal erred by not reconsidering the liability judgment. The reconsideration application clearly extended to liability, and the email was central to the credibility assessment underpinning all of the Tribunals findings. 

Reasonable Diligence and Disclosure 

Contrary to the Tribunal, the EAT accepted that Mr Mayanja could not reasonably have disclosed the email earlier. The Tribunal’s case management orders placed primary responsibility for disclosure on the Council, and it was reasonable for Mr Mayanja to rely on that. 

Outcome 

The EAT set aside both the liability and costs judgments. It found the Tribunal’s decision was “built on foundations of sand” because its adverse credibility assessment—based on the absence of a job offer—was fundamentally undermined by the new evidence. The case was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal to determine all complaints afresh. 

 

Why This Matters 

This ruling highlights that: 

• Fresh evidence can overturn an entire judgment where an overarching assessment of credibility is relied on for all assessments in the case. 
• Tribunals must properly address reconsideration applications where new material undermines core findings.
• Employers should ensure robust disclosure processes; failure to do so can have significant procedural consequences.

For union reps and claimants, it reinforces the importance of preserving and reviewing all communications, as overlooked evidence can be decisive in appeals.  It is also important to note that where fresh evidence is discovered the proper approach is to apply to the Tribunal for reconsideration (which has a short time limit) as the EAT will not usually consider evidence that was not before the Tribunal.