in person For the v Respondent — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing, not a merits judgment. The tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend her pleadings and the respondent's opposition. It granted the amendments sought in paragraph 18.3 and paragraph 18.5, and also granted the amendment to paragraph 60 so far as it raised the claimant's own complaints to Ms Isherwood on 25 and 29 September 2017 as a further disclosure. The tribunal treated those changes as connected to the existing case under the Selkent approach, rather than as wholly new claims, and allowed the respondent leave to amend its Grounds of Resistance if necessary.

In reaching that decision, the tribunal said the amendments built on the original allegations about the performance management system and bullying. It noted the delay in making the application and that the claimant was representing herself, although it also observed that she had skill in human resources. The tribunal recorded that it considered the claimant's explanation that she was responding to the respondent's request for further information to be disingenuous, but on balance decided that the case as now pleaded should proceed to the merits hearing.

The tribunal refused the claimant's request for further particulars dated 7 December 2018 and refused specific disclosure of the documents sought, including social media reviews, emails about other employees, appraisal data, ethnicity pay gap information, and confirmation about redactions. It held that the claimant had not shown the documents were necessary for the fair disposal of the pleaded issues, and said several of the requests were aimed at expanding the case into the treatment of other employees rather than supporting the claimant's own pleaded claims. It also varied the witness statement exchange date from 1 March 2019 to 20 April 2020.