Mr F Saeed, Solicitor v Respondent — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Harrington on 17 May 2019. The claimant had indicated on 16 August 2018 that the ET1 needed amending, and an Employment Tribunal letter of 10 October 2018 directed that revised particulars of claim be sent in within seven days. The judge held that this process had not itself granted permission to amend and that the amendment application properly came before the tribunal for decision on 17 May 2019.

Applying the principles in Selkent Bus Co v Moore, the tribunal refused the claimant’s application to amend. The amended pleading sought to add five further claims: disability discrimination, direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The judge accepted that the proposed amendment was deficient, including because no protected act was identified for victimisation, no comparator or conduct was identified for direct race discrimination, and no PCP was identified for indirect race discrimination. The tribunal concluded that the proposed claims were too inadequately particularised to be understood.

The judge said the case would proceed as an unfair dismissal claim to the hearing date already listed in 2020. No findings were made on the merits of the unfair dismissal claim, and the judgment also stated that no findings were being made about the conduct of the solicitor originally instructed by the claimant.