Mrs N Taylor v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 2023

This was a reserved judgment on the claimant’s application to amend her claim. The tribunal applied the amendment authorities and held that a number of items in the claimant’s table of alleged detriments either arose out of the same facts as the existing claim or were not opposed by the respondent, so those amendments were allowed. It also allowed point 51 because it was directly linked to the existing grievance allegations, and allowed point 57 because the application was made promptly and there was a prima facie case that, if brought as a fresh claim, it would have been in time.

The tribunal refused a large number of other proposed amendments because they introduced new matters not raised in the ET1, appeared to have occurred more than three months before they were first raised on 2 November 2022, and the claimant had not given a satisfactory explanation for omitting them from the originating application. The tribunal was not satisfied that there was a prima facie basis for treating those matters as in time or for extending time on a just and equitable basis, and it did not accept that they formed part of conduct extending over a period.

In weighing prejudice and proportionality, the tribunal found that the delay would prejudice the respondent because relevant employees and agency workers had left and some email accounts had been closed. It also held that expanding the case in this way would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective and the public interest in finality. A proposed amendment concerning Acas early conciliation was refused as impermissible, and the proposed reasonable adjustments complaint based on dyslexia was left for a further preliminary hearing because more information was required.