In person but assisted by her partner Mr Caldicott For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant presented her ET1 on 2 May 2018. At the preliminary hearing on 2 December 2019, the tribunal considered whether her later further particulars amounted to a substantial amendment adding new factual allegations to claims for sex discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, and holiday pay. It held that the ET1 itself did not contain the essential factual case for those claims, so the application had to be approached as a new and substantial amendment and time limits had to be considered at the date of the application.

On the sex discrimination allegations, the tribunal recorded the claimant's case that Mr Bumstead had subjected her to humiliating or offensive treatment because she had refused his advances while she worked at Wimbledon Depot. It found that she moved to Woking Depot on 15 May 2016, that there was no evidence of sexual harassment after that move, and that the later matters relied on were mainly procedural issues about documents and HR rather than continuing acts of harassment. The tribunal therefore held that the proposed sex discrimination amendment was out of time and that no basis had been shown for a just and equitable extension.

The tribunal dealt separately with the holiday entitlement point and the wages overpayment point first raised in the further particulars. It found that the holiday complaint related to 20 days' leave identified in summer 2016, that the overpayment complaint arose when the claimant became aware in January 2017 that London Weighting had continued after her transfer to Woking, and that neither complaint had been pleaded in the ET1. Both were held to be out of time, with no explanation showing that it had not been reasonably practicable to present them within the statutory period.

The tribunal referred to Chandhok v Tirkey and Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore on amendments, and to the statutory time-limit provisions in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It also referred to Galillee v Commisioner of the Police of the Metropolis, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson, and Robertson v Bexley Community Centre when considering limitation and the balance of hardship. It concluded that the prejudice to the respondent, including the age of the allegations and likely impact on evidence and hearing length, outweighed any prejudice to the claimant from refusing the amendment.

The unfair dismissal claim was not disputed to be in time and remained to be heard. The tribunal therefore listed it for a three-day hearing before a judge sitting alone, with witness statements to be exchanged four weeks before the hearing date. No merits finding was made on unfair dismissal at this preliminary stage.