Mr Andrew F Veitch v Ministry of Justice Preliminary Hearing at: Edinburgh — 2017

Mr Veitch, a serving salaried District Tribunal Judge, had originally lodged an in-time pension-only PTWR claim based on his earlier fee-paid judicial service. He later sought, by amendment presented on 11 March 2014, to add monetary claims for training-day fees, decision writing and the daily sitting fee. On the tribunal's findings, that amendment was about 23 months late, so the issue was whether the monetary complaint could still be considered on a just and equitable basis under regulation 8(3) of the 2000 Regulations.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Veitch himself knew little about employment law, did not know of the monetary claim when he presented the original pension claim in August 2011, and only gradually became aware that additional claims might be available. It also accepted that the respondent had mishandled the wider batch of monetary amendment claims, including delayed compliance with case-management orders and many erroneous settlements of out-of-time claims, although the judge found those errors were not the product of bad faith. In assessing the limitation issue, the tribunal referred to the statutory time limit in regulation 8(2), the just and equitable discretion in regulation 8(3), and authorities including Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, Keeble, Caston and Bowden.

Balancing the length and reasons for the delay, the absence of forensic prejudice, the promptness of action once the point became apparent, and the conduct of the respondent in the proceedings, the tribunal concluded that it would be just and equitable to consider Mr Veitch's monetary claim notwithstanding that it had been presented after the time limit expired. No substantive determination of liability or quantum was made in this judgment, and no monetary award was recorded here.