Case 2302816/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Bevis v HDR Consulting Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2302816/2023
Decision date: 30 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Russell Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Bevis

Respondent

HDR Consulting Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This hearing on 20 May 2024 was a preliminary hearing to decide the claimant's application to amend his claim. The claimant had originally pleaded disability and/or age discrimination, later sought to add constructive unfair dismissal, and then applied in writing on 15 March 2024 to add harassment and victimisation allegations, together with further age and disability discrimination allegations relating to occupational health referrals and the handling of a subject access request.

The tribunal applied the amendment principles in Selkent Bus Co Limited v Moore and Vaughan v Modality Partnership, focusing on the balance of injustice and hardship, the nature of the amendments, the timing of the application, time limits, and the practical consequences of allowing or refusing the new allegations. It also referred to Galilee, Prakash, Gillett, Martin, Ladbroke Racing, Kumari, sections 26(1) and 27(1) of the Equality Act 2010, and Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan.

The amendment relating to occupational health referrals was refused. The judge found that those allegations were substantial new factual lines of enquiry, that the claimant was already aware of the underlying matters when he presented his claim in June 2023, and that evidence would have to be led about events going back to 2012. The tribunal did not decide whether the new allegations were in time, but treated time limits as a live issue. It concluded that refusing the occupational health amendments would not significantly disadvantage the claimant.

The tribunal also refused the amendments relating to the subject access request. It accepted that those events were more recent and that the case was at an early stage, but held that the proposed harassment and victimisation allegations introduced different evidential and legal issues, that the claimant could have brought a separate claim, and that the balance of hardship still favoured refusal. No monetary award was made, and the judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying claims.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	The tribunal refused the application to amend the claim to add further age discrimination allegations arising from the respondent's alleged failure to refer the claimant for an occupational health assessment. This was a procedural ruling on amendment, not a final determination of the merits.	Other	Age	—
Disability discrimination	The same amendment application also sought to add further disability discrimination allegations, including discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, in relation to the occupational health referral issue. The tribunal refused the amendment and made no merits finding on those allegations.	Other	Disability	—
Harassment	The tribunal refused the application to amend the claim to add harassment allegations concerning the respondent's handling of the subject access request. The claimant said the allegations were related to age and disability, but the tribunal refused to allow them to be added.	Other	Age	—
Victimisation	The tribunal refused the application to amend the claim to add post-employment victimisation arising from the respondent's handling of the subject access request. No merits determination was made on the underlying allegation.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

11 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.