Mr J Allsop of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2023

This judgment was on the claimant’s application to amend his First Claim, not on the merits of the underlying employment tribunal allegations. Mr Paul Thompson remained employed by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service as a Watch Manager. The First Claim, ET1 1401578/2022, had been presented on 9 May 2022 and alleged disability discrimination and sex discrimination; a separate Second Claim, 6000574/2023, was later presented on 31 March 2023 and alleged victimisation and further discrimination.

Employment Judge N J Roper recorded the respondent’s complaint that the claimant had advanced several different versions of his case, including a schedule, draft list of issues, and proposed amended particulars, and that those versions did not clearly identify what was being amended by reference to the original ET1. The judgment refers to the principles in Chapman v Simon, Cocking v Sandhurst, Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore, and the need for a careful balancing exercise considering prejudice and hardship. It also cites Chandhok v Tirkey on the proper function of the ET1 and the need for focus and clarity in tribunal pleadings.

The judge found the claimant had not complied with the earlier case management order requiring a single document that made clear, by reference to the originating application, exactly what amendments were sought. He considered that the claimant had treated the ET1 as a document merely to “set the ball rolling”, and that this approach left the respondent and the tribunal to work through the proposed changes laboriously. Because the proposed amendments lacked sufficient clarity, the judge said he could not properly identify and record the claims before the tribunal or carry out a full Selkent balancing exercise, particularly on relative injustice and hardship.

The application to amend was refused because the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent and it was not in the interests of justice to allow the amendments as sought. The judgment records that the claimant remained free to pursue the allegations in the first originating application together with the separate claims in the Second Claim, and that separate case management orders had been made so that both claims could proceed to hearing.