Case 2205756/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J F Edwards v Unite the Union and 3 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2205756/2018
- Decision date
- 6 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr J F Edwards
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a case management judgment. The tribunal refused and dismissed the claimant's application to strike out the respondents' ET3, with full reasons stated to have been sent separately. The tribunal also allowed the claimant's proposed amendments, including amendments accepted by the respondents and the remaining amendments considered in the reasons.
Employment Judge Robinson found that the disputed amendments either provided further detail of allegations already made in the ET1 or Scott Schedule, or could be dealt with without prejudice to the respondents at the final hearing. The judge applied the guidance in Selkent Bus Company v Moore when considering amendment issues, and repeatedly noted that disputed factual matters were for the final tribunal to decide.
The tribunal also addressed the order of witnesses for the final hearing. In view of the claimant's medical condition, the judge suggested that the respondents' witnesses give evidence first so that the claimant could complete cross-examination before giving his own evidence, while leaving the final decision to the tribunal panel hearing the case in Manchester.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The only dismissed matter in this judgment was the claimant's procedural application to strike out the respondents' ET3. The judgment did not determine the underlying discrimination or union-related claims on their merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal allowed the claimant's applications to amend his claims. This was a case management decision, not a merits determination of the underlying claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Selkent Bus Company v Moore
- section 57(2) and (5) of the Equality Act 2010
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.
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.