Mr M Tranter. v Woodhull Roofing Ltd and Mr S Pike — 2026

This was a preliminary case management judgment concerning party status in proceedings originally brought against Woodhull Roofing Ltd. The underlying claim form identified disability discrimination and harassment or bullying complaints, and the pleaded disability was depression with symptoms including anxiety, insomnia and very low mood. The Respondent Company had conceded that the Claimant had a relevant disability at the material time between August 2022 and the end of July 2023, but the substantive discrimination, harassment, discrimination arising from disability and reasonable adjustments issues were not determined in this judgment.

The tribunal reviewed the procedural history, including earlier applications concerning individual respondents. Employment Judge Beck had refused an application to add Mr Dale Chattaway after the Respondent Company accepted potential vicarious liability for his actions. After the Respondent Company entered voluntary liquidation, the Claimant applied to add Mr Stephen Pike. Employment Judge Bansal had refused that application on 8 November 2024, but Employment Judge Murdin later granted it on 6 January 2025, and this judgment provided written reasons and addressed the earlier conflicting decision.

Employment Judge Murdin held that the application to add Mr Pike involved no factual amendment to the claim form, was made at a relatively early stage, and concerned a proposed respondent who was already aware of the proceedings. The judge considered that refusal could cause significant prejudice to the Claimant if he succeeded but could not recover compensation from the company in liquidation, while the prejudice to Mr Pike was assessed as little to none. Applying the interests of justice, the overriding objective, Rule 35 and amendment principles including Cocking and Selkent, the tribunal granted the application to add Mr Pike as a respondent.

The judgment also considered whether Employment Judge Murdin had been aware of Employment Judge Bansal's earlier refusal. The judge concluded that he had not been aware of it, but stated that even if that conclusion was wrong, the determination remained unaltered. If necessary, the tribunal relied on Rule 30 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to set aside the earlier case management order in the interests of justice. No remedy award was made.