Case 1402399/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Woollven v Archant Community Media Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402399/2019
- Decision date
- 10 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Woollven
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on Miss J Woollven's applications to amend her existing claims. The judge recorded that the Second Claim, issued in May 2019, alleged disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal against Archant Community Media Limited, and that the claimant then sought to add six individual respondents and two corporate respondents after the respondent entered a CVA. At the start of the hearing the claimant accepted that failure to make reasonable adjustments and constructive unfair dismissal could not be pursued against individual respondents and withdrew that part of the amendment application.
Applying the Cocking and Selkent approach, the tribunal treated most of the proposed individual-respondent allegations as closely connected to the existing case because they arose from the same subject matter: the redirection of emails and the handling of grievances and appeals. Even so, the judge refused the application overall because the timing of the application, the claimant's earlier knowledge of the individuals, and the prejudice that would arise to proposed individual respondents if they were added after the employer's CVA outweighed permission to amend. The judge referred to possible separate representation issues and potential joint and several liability and apportionment consequences.
The proposed claims against Rcapital Nominees Limited and TRL 2019 Limited were refused in a separate part of the ruling. The tribunal found that these were new claims rather than relabelling, that any such amendment would be out of time, and that there was no evidence of a TUPE transfer or other transfer of undertaking or business to either company. The respondent continued to trade and employ staff, and the claimant had resigned on 29 March 2019, with an effective date of termination of 1 April 2019, before the October 2020 share transfer. The applications to amend were dismissed in their entirety, and the underlying Second Claim against Archant Community Media Limited remained stayed pending further directions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Application to add six individual respondents to the existing disability discrimination allegations was refused. The judge held that the proposed amendments were closely linked to the existing case but, applying Selkent/Cocking, the balance of prejudice and timing pointed against amendment. At the start of the hearing the claimant withdrew the parts of the application that sought failure to make reasonable adjustments or constructive unfair dismissal claims against individual respondents. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Application to add Rcapital Nominees Limited and TRL 2019 Limited as corporate respondents based on an alleged TUPE/share-transfer was refused. The tribunal held these were new claims, out of time, and unsupported by evidence of any transfer of undertaking or business; the respondent continued to trade and employ staff. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Ali v Office of National Statistics
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Regulation 3 TUPE
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.