Mr B Teaca v -v- Coventry University Higher Education Corporation — 2023

The claimant's application dated 15 September 2023 for reconsideration of the refusal of his amendment application was held to be out of time. The judge refused the application to extend time, saying the claimant was highly intelligent, ought to have known how to obtain legal advice or find the time-limit information, did not explain what steps he had taken or why he had not acted earlier, and that the timing point had already been raised when the amendment application was considered.

Even if the reconsideration application had been in time, it would have been refused. The judge held that the proposed sex discrimination complaint was not a mere relabelling, because the facts now relied on went beyond those identified in the claim form and the inferences the claimant suggested could not be drawn from the original pleading.

The judge also found that the amendment was substantially out of time, first being identified about 21 months after the incident and after the claimant had already brought other complaints. The respondent had been deprived of the opportunity to investigate the matter at the time, which was said to be particularly important in discrimination complaints because the reason for treatment is in the alleged discriminator's mind. The prejudice to the respondent was held to substantially outweigh the prejudice to the claimant, and the judge concluded there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.