Case 2300786/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A O’Grady v Alpha Response (2004) Ltd t/a Red Support Services — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300786/2022
- Decision date
- 31 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sekhon Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP at Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A O’Grady
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing by CVP at Croydon on 5 September 2023, Employment Judge Sekhon considered Mr A O'Grady's application to amend his whistleblowing claim against Alpha Response (2004) Ltd t/a Red Support Services. The original ET1, presented on 24 February 2022, alleged dismissal after protected disclosures under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendments sought to add two further alleged disclosures: one concerning Adobe Flash support and the WPS car parking system, and one concerning the check-call system used to monitor lone workers at night.
Applying the Selkent amendment principles, the tribunal held that the proposed allegations were new factual allegations and new causes of action rather than minor particulars of the existing claim. It found that they were not sufficiently pleaded in the ET1, that the respondent only became aware of the precise allegations at the February 2023 case management conference, and that Mr O'Grady had several earlier opportunities to raise them.
The tribunal also found that the proposed amendments were out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable for them to have been presented earlier. It took into account the absence of an adequate explanation for the delay and the prejudice to the respondent if the amendments were allowed, including the risk that evidence and witnesses would no longer be available. The application to amend was refused, the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider the amended allegations, and the underlying case remained listed for a final merits hearing on 26 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Application to amend refused. The tribunal held the proposed additional protected-disclosure allegations were new factual allegations/new causes of action, were out of time, and were not reasonably practicable to present earlier. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore (1996) ICR 836
- Housing Corporation v Bryant 1999 ICR 123
- Foxtons Ltd v Ruwiel EAT 0056/08
- Remploy Ltd v Abbott UKEAT/0405/14
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2018 ICR 634
- Transport and General Workers' Union v Safeway Stores Ltd EAT 0092/07
- Ladbrokes Racing Ltd v Traynor EATS0067/06
- Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07
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.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
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.