Mrs B Stankova v Servest Group Limited — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing on the claimant's new schedule of claims. The tribunal applied the Selkent line of authorities on amendment, including the balance of prejudice and whether proposed amendments were substantial or would raise new areas of enquiry. It also applied section 123 Equality Act 2010 on time limits, including section 123(3) on conduct extending over a period. The tribunal found that claims 1 to 15 were outside the ordinary three-month time limit and that only claim 16 was within time.

Leave to amend was granted for claims 2, 13, 14 and 16, but refused for claims 8, 9, 12 and 15. The refused amendments were treated as substantial new allegations, particularly the harassment complaints, and the tribunal said they would involve new lines of enquiry. The claimant's explanation that she had relied on union advice and awaited grievances was not accepted as a basis for extending time for the older claims.

Claims 1 to 7 were dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found no satisfactory explanation for the delay and held that it was not just and equitable to extend time for those complaints. Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 were treated as part of a continuing course of conduct and therefore in time by reason of section 123(3), leaving claims 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 to proceed to a later case management stage. The judgment did not determine liability or make any remedy award.