In person For the v Respondent — 2021

At a preliminary hearing on 20 October 2021, Employment Judge Williams considered Ms Desai's and Mr Hindley's applications to amend their existing Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 complaints to add monetary claims. The proposed amendments included payments for writing up statements of reasons and training days, a divisor claim, an interest-like payment, and, for Mr Hindley, London weighting. The parties' pension claims had already been resolved to their satisfaction, and the tribunal was only deciding whether the late amendments should be allowed under regulation 8(3).

The tribunal held that the short primary limitation period expired on 1 February 2008 for Ms Desai and 10 March 2008 for Mr Hindley, so both original complaints had been presented out of time. It found that by about 2014 at the latest both claimants knew that monetary claims could be brought. Their delay after that point was not reasonably explained: both had solicitors, both were aware of O'Brien, Miller and Veitch, and the tribunal did not accept that Veitch gave any proper reason to wait further. It also rejected submissions that the respondent should be treated differently because it was the state, or that matters concerning carers or women generally were relevant to the amendment decision.

Applying regulation 8(3) PTWR, the section 33 Limitation Act 1980 factors, and the Selkent amendment principles, the tribunal balanced the prejudice to each side. It noted that the respondent did not challenge the calculation evidence and did not identify forensic prejudice from delay, but it found the delay from 2014 onwards had not been reasonably explained and weighed against the claimants. The balance of prejudice fell against granting the amendments, so both applications were refused and dismissed.