Mrs L Hudson v Green Willow Funerals Limited — 2019

On 20 November 2019 Employment Judge S Jenkins heard two applications to amend the claimant's ET1. The claimant said the July 2019 Scott Schedule only particularised claims already indicated by the original form, which had ticked age and disability discrimination. Applying Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore and the Presidential Guidance on Case Management, and also referring to British Coal Corporation v Keeble and the section 33 Limitation Act 1980 factors, the tribunal considered whether the proposed amendments were really clarifications or new out-of-time claims.

For the first application, the judge held that the ET1 could be read as containing possible harassment, direct discrimination and discrimination arising from disability allegations, based on the references to the claimant being excluded, ostracised, not given information and eventually dismissed without good reason. The tribunal did not accept that the ET1 contained victimisation or reasonable-adjustments claims. It therefore refused to allow new claims under sections 20 and 27 EqA, but allowed clarification of the existing section 13, section 15 and section 26 claims.

The second application was based on documents disclosed on 19 July 2019 following a subject access request made on 21 September 2018. The claimant said those emails and meeting minutes showed the performance concerns said to have led to dismissal. The judge accepted that these materials were capable of supporting further allegations and that it was just and equitable to extend time. An amendment was therefore allowed to add a victimisation claim based on the alleged failure to provide the documents as a detriment following protected acts, but only in relation to the September 2018 grievance letter and not the earlier two alleged protected acts.

The tribunal also allowed a limited reasonable-adjustments amendment based on the claimant's hearing disability and the allegation that performance concerns should have been set aside when deciding to dismiss. Amendments referring to other disabilities were not allowed because nothing in relation to them had been drawn to the tribunal's attention. This judgment dealt only with amendment and time-limit issues; it did not decide liability or record any monetary award.