The EAT has upheld an employment tribunal’s refusal to allow a claimant, acting in person, to amend her claim to add disability discrimination complaints four months after becoming aware of the potential claims.
Background
Under Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] IRLR 661, tribunals must balance all relevant circumstances when deciding whether to permit amendments to ET1s, considering:
- the nature of the amendment;
- limitation issues; and
- the timing and manner of the application.
Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (SI 2024/1155) requires cases to be dealt with fairly and justly, which includes avoiding delay and ensuring proportionality.
Facts
CX, dismissed as a prison officer in December 2021, initially brought claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, religion or belief discrimination, and later whistleblowing. In February 2024, after reviewing disclosure, she sought to add disability discrimination claims (depression and anxiety). The application was made in April 2024.
Decision
The tribunal refused the amendment, finding the claims were new rather than a relabelling, would require significant further investigation, and that the four-month delay lacked good reason. The prejudice to the respondent (additional disclosure, witnesses, costs, and hearing time) outweighed the prejudice to CX, particularly as her existing claims could lead to similar compensation.
On appeal, the EAT confirmed the tribunal had correctly applied the Selkent factors. There was no error of law, perversity, or failure to consider relevant matters.
Key point
Delay in seeking amendments, even for litigants in person, can be decisive. Where new claims introduce additional factual and legal issues, tribunals will weigh heavily the disruption, cost, and fairness to the respondent.
