Case 2301897/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R. Knott v Dover Harbour Board — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301897/2023
- Decision date
- 24 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Beale KC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R. Knott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on amendment applications in a case brought by Mr R. Knott about his employment as a Level 3 Safety, Health and Environment Technician Apprentice between 5 September 2022 and 13 March 2023. The ET1 was presented on 27 April 2023. The tribunal considered a first amendment application dated 29 August 2024 and a second dated 10 December 2024 at an open preliminary hearing on 17 and 18 December 2024.
Applying the Presidential Guidance Note on amendments and the Selkent factors, including the nature of the amendment, time limits, timing and manner of the application, and relative hardship, the tribunal held that the ET1 did not clearly disclose age discrimination as originally pleaded. It allowed an age amendment only in relation to the complaint that the requirement to produce an English GCSE certificate, or locate older exam certificates, placed the claimant, as an older worker, at a disadvantage. It refused the proposed age amendments concerning the functional English assessment and the apprentice wage level.
The tribunal allowed a number of disability amendments because they were closely connected to the pleaded case about the English assessment and reasonable adjustments, including points about working from home, a laptop, travel to work, flexible working, redeployment, attendance criticism, and further particulars added in the second amendment application. It refused other disability allegations as new matters or because no legal basis was explained, including the post-employment phased return request, failure to investigate, forced labour, the Autism Act point, and several later comments or pressure allegations. It also allowed an amendment to plead harassment related to disability based on the repeated attempts to require the English assessment, and it recorded that the victimisation amendment application was not pursued. No remedy was determined because this was a procedural judgment only.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Permission to amend was allowed only for the indirect age discrimination complaint based on the requirement to produce an English GCSE certificate and locate old exam certificates; proposed age amendments about the functional English assessment and apprentice pay were refused. The first and second age paragraphs were not pursued. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Permission to amend was allowed in part for the disability case, including reasonable-adjustments and s.15 points concerning the English assessment, laptop or work from home, travel to work, flexible working, redeployment and related particulars. Several new matters were refused. Panic disorder was not pursued separately, and PTSD was not maintained as a live disability basis in the amendment judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Permission to amend was allowed to plead harassment related to disability on the basis that repeated attempts to require the English assessment could potentially amount to harassment. No merits determination was made. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The claimant did not pursue the victimisation amendment application, so all victimisation paragraphs were not pursued. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Presidential Guidance Note on amendments
- Selkent Bus Company v Moore
- Ali v Office of National Statistics
- Baker v Commissioner of the Metropolis
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Amey Services Ltd v Aldridge
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Cosgrove v Caesar & Howie
- Tarbuck v Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.