Mayanja v City of Bradford: Fresh evidence overturns credibility findings in discrimination case

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has set aside discrimination claims and costs awards after fresh evidence fundamentally undermined an Employment Tribunal's credibility findings in Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2025] EAT 160.

Mr Mayanja, who describes himself as being of black African ethnicity, brought claims of race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and breach of contract after the respondent Council withdrew him from a recruitment process for a Refugee and New Communities Integration Officer role. The central dispute concerned whether Ms Clipsom, the recruiting manager, had made him a job offer in October 2021.

The original tribunal's approach

The Employment Tribunal comprehensively rejected all of Mayanja's claims, finding him to be an unreliable witness who had fabricated evidence. The tribunal's credibility assessment proved decisive. It concluded that Ms Clipsom was "an experienced manager" with thorough knowledge of recruitment policies who would not have made an unconditional offer contrary to council guidance. The tribunal expressly preferred her evidence "where there is a conflict."

This credibility determination permeated every aspect of the tribunal's reasoning. It rejected Mayanja's harassment complaint as "fabricated," dismissed his victimisation claim because it "generally prefer[red] Mrs Clipsom as a more reliable witness," and found her explanations for removing him from the recruitment process to be "truthful and well founded."

The tribunal subsequently awarded £2,000 in costs against Mayanja, concluding he had constructed his contract claim "on a basis which he knew to be untrue."

The discovered email

Following the costs application, Mayanja discovered an email from Ms Clipsom dated 18 October 2021 stating: "I'm pleased to say we'd like to offer you the job." Ms Clipsom later accepted the email was genuine, explaining that an obsolete archiving system had prevented its discovery during bundle preparation.

Mayanja applied for reconsideration of both judgements. The Employment Tribunal treated the application as limited to costs, accepting the new evidence demonstrated Mayanja had not fabricated the offer claim. It reduced the costs award to £200 but declined to reconsider the liability judgement.

The appeal

HHJ Tayler identified a fundamental flaw in the tribunal's approach. The entire edifice of credibility findings rested on the conclusion that no job offer had been made and that Ms Clipsom would never have made such an offer contrary to policy. This proved to be "foundations of sand."

The tribunal had adopted a generalised preference for Ms Clipsom's evidence over Mayanja's in all conflicts. Once the central premise collapsed with the discovery of the 18 October email, the derivative credibility assessments became unsafe.

The case illustrates the dangers of making overarching credibility determinations that then drive all subsequent findings. Whilst the tribunal had identified other concerns about Mayanja's evidence—including inconsistencies about acceptance dates and exaggeration of previous salary—these had to be viewed against the centrality of the flawed finding about the job offer.

Procedural observations

HHJ Tayler confirmed that applications based on fresh evidence should ordinarily be made to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration before appealing. The tribunal, having heard witnesses, is best placed to assess new evidence's impact. However, having admitted the new evidence for reconsideration of costs, the tribunal erred in failing to consider its effect on the liability judgement.

The EAT remitted all claims to a differently constituted tribunal to ensure Mayanja would have confidence in a fresh determination without preconceptions about his credibility. The costs judgement was also set aside as a consequence.