Mr Mugliston (counsel) For the v Mr Menham (solicitor) — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing on amendment and wasted costs, not a final merits hearing. The claimant had presented claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. Earlier case management directions recorded that the dismissal complaints were in time, while limitation was in issue for the reasonable adjustments complaints. The respondent had conceded for the purposes of the proceedings that the claimant was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, with PTSD and/or vertigo and/or a knee injury, and that it knew or ought to have known of that disability at the material time.

The tribunal considered the claimant's application of 30 September 2019 to amend the particulars. It allowed the amendments to the factual section and the unfair dismissal case, and it also allowed the amendment to the section 15 discrimination arising from disability complaint, treating that change as a helpful narrowing of the dismissal issue. It accepted that the respondent would not suffer material additional prejudice from those amendments because the factual territory would in any event have to be examined in relation to both the dismissal and section 15 complaints.

The tribunal refused the proposed amendment to the reasonable adjustments complaint. It held that the revised pleading still did not properly set out the provision, criterion or practice relied on and how that PCP put the claimant at a disadvantage compared with people who are not disabled. The tribunal said it was not for it to undertake a pleading exercise for a professionally represented party, and that the respondent and the tribunal should not have to bear the further cost of clarifying a defective amendment for a second time.

The respondent had opposed the application by reference to the Selkent principles and the Chandok principle, and the tribunal accepted that the manner of the amendment application, particularly on the reasonable adjustments point, justified refusing that part of the application. It then made a wasted costs order under Rule 80 against the claimant's representative on the record, the NASUWT, and summarily assessed the costs at £708 plus VAT, based on four hours at a grade B rate of £177 per hour for preparation, attendance and travel.