Mr R Steen v AND The Edward James Foundation — 2020

This judgment determined an application to amend the originating application, not the final merits of the underlying claims. The Claimant was permitted to add complaints of direct disability discrimination and harassment related to disability concerning the alleged refusal to allow him access to a computer for recreational purposes and to access his wage slips and make holiday requests. The tribunal recorded that those allegations were already part of the current claim, but were not previously pleaded as discrimination or harassment claims.

The tribunal applied the Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore balancing exercise, with Reuters Ltd v Cole also cited by the parties. It noted that the allegations about computer access, wage slips and holiday requests were ongoing and therefore did not raise time limit problems. Although the Respondent argued that those matters were more naturally characterised as reasonable adjustments claims and sought deposit orders if the complaints were allowed to proceed, the tribunal did not decide that issue at this stage.

The application was refused in relation to a separate harassment related to disability complaint about the conduct of Mr Graham between 19 June 2019 and 10 February 2020. The tribunal found that Mr Graham was not mentioned in the original claim form, that the application to add those allegations was first made on 8 June 2020, and that there had been no discovery of new facts or documents that explained the delay. It also held that the pleaded allegations did not provide the necessary ingredients for harassment related to disability and did not suggest that Mr Graham's actions on 10 February 2020 were connected to the Claimant's disability.

The tribunal further noted that allowing the Mr Graham complaint in its unspecific form would create greater prejudice to the Respondent, including the need for an amended response, witness evidence and possible disruption to the listed final hearing. The order therefore granted the amendment only for the computer, wage slip and holiday request allegations and refused the amendment for the Mr Graham allegations.