Case 1306052/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Bate-Jones v Home Office (Border Force (UK)) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1306052/2018
- Decision date
- 25 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Bate-Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss G Bate-Jones worked for the Home Office (UK Border Force) from 29 September 1980 until her dismissal on 22 August 2018. This preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Mark Butler did not determine the merits of the underlying claims or any remedy. It dealt with two applications to amend the claim form, and the tribunal applied the Selkent and Cocking amendment principles, the March 2014 Presidential Guidance, and the relevant time-limit tests.
By the first application dated 6 June 2019, the tribunal allowed the trade union detriment point because it treated that allegation as a relabelling of facts already pleaded. It also allowed amendments to add disability harassment and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The same application was refused insofar as it sought to add Equality Act victimisation; the judge said that part had weak merit, and relied in part on the claimant's evidence that her earlier personal injury claim had been about health and safety rather than Equality Act issues.
By the second application dated 25 November 2019, the tribunal refused the amendment in its entirety. It declined to add further whistleblowing allegations and an automatic unfair dismissal claim because they were significantly out of time, the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time, and the whistleblowing particulars were too vague. The Equality Act additions, including discrimination arising from disability and further development of the disability discrimination allegations, were also refused: the tribunal treated time-limit issues as neutral at the amendment stage, but found the proposed pleading too broad and insufficiently specific, with prejudice to the respondent and no further case-management order made at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The 6 June 2019 amendment was allowed. The tribunal treated the trade union detriment point as a relabelling of facts already pleaded, so it did not treat it as a new cause of action. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | The 6 June 2019 amendment was allowed to add a disability harassment claim under the Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The 6 June 2019 amendment was allowed to add a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim; the tribunal said time limits for that claim remained a live issue for later determination. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The 6 June 2019 amendment was refused insofar as it sought to add Equality Act victimisation. The tribunal said this part of the amendment had weak merit. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The 25 November 2019 amendment was refused insofar as it sought further whistleblowing allegations. The tribunal said the proposed disclosures, said to run from early 2012 to August 2018, were significantly out of time and were too vaguely pleaded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Presidential Guidance on Case Management (March 2014)
- Mist v Derby Community Health Services NHS Trust
- Denton and others v TH White Ltd
- Chandhok and Chandhok v Tirkey
- Mowe Saha v Capita Plc
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 (just and equitable)
- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 (not reasonably practicable)
- s.48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 (not reasonably practicable)
- s.147 TULR(C)A 1992 (not reasonably practicable)
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.