Case 1803317/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P McGrath v Aldi Stores Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803317/2019
- Decision date
- 1 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P McGrath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the claimant's application to amend his existing claims, following a case management hearing. The proposed amendments were a harassment complaint about comments allegedly made on 30 January 2018 concerning the claimant's caring responsibilities, and an associative disability discrimination complaint based on his mother's dementia.
The tribunal refused the harassment amendment. It found that the proposed complaint was not a relabelling of an existing claim, would be significantly out of time if brought as a fresh claim, and was supported by an inadequate explanation for delay. The tribunal also considered the proposed harassment claim weak because the alleged comment appeared to be directed at caring responsibilities rather than the claimant's disability.
The tribunal also refused the associative disability discrimination amendment. It found that the proposed claim was out of time, would require a significant new line of enquiry into the claimant's mother's disability status, and was not clearly pleaded as less favourable treatment because of association with his mother. The tribunal stated that the claimant could still give evidence about the alleged 30 January 2018 incident and the impact of caring responsibilities in relation to his existing claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal refused permission to amend the claim to add a harassment complaint about an alleged incident on 30 January 2018. The substantive harassment complaint was not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused permission to amend the claim to add an associative disability discrimination complaint relating to the claimant's mother. The substantive discrimination complaint was not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Selkent Bus Co Limited v Moore
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- balance of injustice and hardship
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.
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.