Case 2301218/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Rajni Peter v ATOS IT Services UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301218/2021
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Rajni Peter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the Claimant's application to amend the list of issues and directed that the parties continue to use the list agreed at the Preliminary Hearing on 3 March 2022. The underlying claim was described as a disability discrimination claim, including complaints of harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability, but those complaints were not decided in this judgment.
The Tribunal found that the existing agreed list of issues reflected the Claimant's particulars of claim and provided a concise summary of the issues to be decided. It considered that the proposed amended list was several times longer, added numerous detailed questions, and went beyond what was necessary for a list of issues.
The proposed amendment also raised new matters, including indirect discrimination, alleged breaches of duty and a personal injury claim. The Tribunal found that no persuasive reason had been given for allowing such a wholescale amendment nearly two years after the claim was brought and after the list of issues had already been considered and agreed at a Preliminary Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determined only the Claimant's application to amend the list of issues. It did not determine the substantive disability discrimination complaints on their merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Vaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] ICR 535
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd [1974] ICR 650
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd [2014] ICR 209
- balance of injustice and hardship
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.