One Chance to Get It Right: Lessons from the Maltby Case

When you go to the Employment Tribunal without a lawyer, it can feel overwhelming. You might think the judge will piece everything together for you. But a recent case —Shane Maltby v Chestnut Inns Ltd— shows why you need to be clear and organised about your case, and what your claims are.

Whilst the case directly concerned the issue of disability under the Equality Act 2010, it contains incredibly important reminders on the general limits of how far the tribunal will go to help those representing themselves.

A claim should be thoroughly identified at a Case Management Hearing ("CMH") where a clear List of Issues should be set out. Getting this list wrong, or missing something out, at this stage can be fatal to your claim later, as Mr. Maltby found out.

Mr Maltby had been dismissed from his job as a chef. He brought a claim for disability discrimination, but he struggled to pin down which health conditions he was relying on. At different points he mentioned Crohn’s disease, a burn to his hand, seizures, asthma, PTSD, obesity, and later an old injury to his arm. The Tribunal eventually ruled that none of these conditions counted as a “disability” under the Equality Act at the time he was employed.

On appeal, Mr Maltby argued that the Tribunal should have picked up on his old arm injury — something he called “claw syndrome” — and treated it as part of his case. The EAT disagreed.

Here’s why this matters if you’re bringing your own claim:

“The ET’s role is arbitral not inquisitorial or investigative… [It] has no general duty to take pro-active steps to prompt some expansion or modification of the case advanced by a party where that might be to their advantage.” (para [42])

In plain English: the Tribunal won’t “fill in the blanks” for you. They can clarify what you mean, especially if you’re unrepresented, but they won’t build your case for you.

Mr Maltby also argued that his mental health problems meant the Tribunal should have done more to help him. Again, the EAT said no:

“What, if any, particular proactive steps the tribunal may need to take in light of an issue raised relating to a party’s mental ill health… depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” (para [63])

That means if you’re struggling with your health during the case, you need to tell the Tribunal directly — for example, by asking for adjustments, more time, or explaining clearly what you can and can’t do.

More generally, you should ensure your case is correctly and completely set out in the CMH and the Case Management Order when you receive it.

Finally, Mr Maltby tried to reopen the decision by applying for “reconsideration” after he lost. The EAT was clear on this point too:

“In substance, having been unsuccessful at the hearing, the Claimant seeks a second chance to argue his case.” (para [39])

A reconsideration isn’t a chance to try again with new evidence or arguments. It’s only allowed where something went seriously wrong the first time.

So what can you learn from this case?

• Be precise from the start— write down exactly which condition or conditions you say amount to a disability, and why.
• Get your evidence in early— don’t wait until after you’ve lost to find medical records.
• If you’re struggling— ask the Tribunal for reasonable adjustments, but don’t assume they’ll work out your case for you.
• Remember finality— once a Tribunal has decided, you usually only get one real chance.

This case is a tough reminder: clarity is everything. If you don’t spell out your case, the Tribunal won’t do it for you. Again it goes to highlight how important getting your list of issues right is. Without a clear one the tribunal won't help you rewrite your claim at a later date.

Maltby v Chestnut Inns Ltd [2025] EAT 130