Case 1600094/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Richards v Chief Constable of North Wales Police Heard: by video — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600094/2021
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Richards
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed to decide whether Mr Richards should be permitted to amend his existing claim and then to address case management. The original claim alleged discrimination on grounds of sex, sexual orientation and race, and later documents sought to add or relabel allegations including disability discrimination and victimisation.
Employment Judge Jenkins applied the balance of injustice and hardship approach to amendment applications, considering the nature of the amendments, time limits, and the timing and manner of the applications. The judge made no decision on whether the claims were in time, noting that limitation, disability, knowledge of disability, and merits issues remained for the tribunal at the final hearing.
The tribunal allowed amendment for claims 1 to 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 as numbered in Document 2, but refused amendment for claims 18, 23, 25, 26 and 27. The refusal was based on the judge's view that those proposed amendments concerned communications or documents that did not have reasonable prospects of amounting to discrimination or victimisation, and that allowing them would increase preparation and hearing time.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary amendment judgment only. The claimant had existing and proposed sex discrimination allegations; the tribunal permitted amendment for claims listed at paragraph 48 and refused amendment for claims 18, 23, 25, 26 and 27, without deciding merits. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Preliminary amendment judgment only. The claimant had existing and proposed sexual orientation discrimination allegations; the tribunal permitted amendment for claims listed at paragraph 48 and refused amendment for claims 18, 23, 25, 26 and 27, without deciding merits. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary amendment judgment only. The original claim included race discrimination. The judgment decided amendment permission, not whether the race discrimination claim succeeded. | Other | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary amendment judgment only. Some proposed disability discrimination relabelling was accepted and other amendments were considered; the tribunal permitted amendment for claims listed at paragraph 48 and refused amendment for claims 18, 23, 25, 26 and 27, without deciding merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Preliminary amendment judgment only. The claimant sought to add or relabel victimisation allegations; the tribunal permitted amendment for claims listed at paragraph 48 and refused amendment for claims 18, 23, 25, 26 and 27, without deciding merits. | Other | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- balance of injustice and hardship
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Limited
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Galilee v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) Presidential Guidance on General Case Management (2018), Guidance Note 1
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.