Case 1300132/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Matthews v Spire Healthcare Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300132/2019
- Decision date
- 11 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on the claimant's application to amend, not a final liability or remedy judgment. The tribunal recorded that Ms Matthews had originally brought claims including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, and that the disability discrimination claim had subsequently been withdrawn. At an earlier case management hearing the remaining claims had been identified as constructive unfair dismissal, automatically unfair whistleblowing dismissal and whistleblowing detriments, but those claims were not determined in this judgment.
The claimant applied approximately 11 months after presenting the claim to add further alleged protected disclosures and detriments. Employment Judge Cookson treated the proposed amendments as new matters rather than simple clarification or correction. The tribunal considered the nature of the amendments, time limits, the timing and manner of the application, the overriding objective, the interests of justice and the prejudice to both parties.
The tribunal found that the proposed new claims were out of time, though that was not treated as determinative. It also found that the application and schedule lacked sufficient clarity, with some proposed protected disclosures and detriments being vague or not clearly pleaded as protected disclosures or detriments applied to the claimant. The tribunal accepted that allowing the amendments would significantly expand the litigation and cause prejudice to the respondent, including because some key witnesses were no longer employed by the respondent and were likely to be unavailable.
Balancing the prejudice, the tribunal refused the application to amend to add new claims of detriment on grounds of public interest disclosure. It recorded that the claimant would still have a significant number of detriment claims to be considered and that the case should be listed for a further telephone case management hearing to prepare for a final hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the ET1 to add new whistleblowing detriment claims. Existing claims were not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the disability discrimination claim had been subsequently withdrawn; it was not adjudicated on the merits in this judgment. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd
- Cocking test
- Ali v Office of National Statistics
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.