Case 1305709/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Allatt v Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305709/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Allatt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend her claim to add complaints of direct sex discrimination and age discrimination. The claimant confirmed that the amendment application was limited to those complaints and that certain other proposed amendments, including disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation amendments, were not pursued.
The tribunal found that the proposed sex and age discrimination complaints were new causes of action rather than a relabelling of the existing pleaded case. It considered that the application was late, insufficiently particularised in respects identified during the hearing, and that on a preliminary assessment the proposed amendments appeared to lack merit and would require further investigation.
Balancing hardship and prejudice, the tribunal concluded that allowing the amendments would cause greater injustice and hardship to the respondent, while the claimant remained able to pursue her existing pleaded Equality Act complaints. The application to amend was refused.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to add complaints of direct sex discrimination; liability was not substantively determined. | Other | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to add complaints of age discrimination; liability was not substantively determined. | Other | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant unequivocally confirmed that the complaint for unfair dismissal was withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the claimant decided not to proceed with whistleblowing complaints and later confirmed that detriment for whistleblowing was withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the claimant decided not to proceed with victimisation complaints. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Chapman v Simon
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- overriding objective
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.