Ms. A Brooker v The Nail and Beauty Zone Limited — 2025

The tribunal dealt with preliminary applications rather than the merits of the claim. It refused the respondent's late application to amend its reply to plead a statutory legitimate aim and proportionality defence in an indirect disability discrimination claim. Applying the Selkent balance and the guidance in Abercrombie, Ladbrokes Racing and Vaughan, it found the request had been left until almost the last possible moment after a mandatory order by Employment Judge Evans, and that allowing it would require additional evidence and likely adjourn the case, causing greater prejudice to the claimant.

On the medical documents, the tribunal left the redaction at page 16 in place, held that a reference to who supplied a report remained properly redacted where the report had already been found not relevant or disclosable, and noted that the other documents had already been provided unredacted elsewhere in the bundle.

It also dealt with the respondent's strike-out application in relation to the automatically unfair dismissal / protected disclosure claim. The tribunal held that section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 does not require ACAS early conciliation information to set out every later pleaded claim, so the absence of an express whistleblowing reference in the grievance did not defeat the claim. It accepted, however, that the dismissal itself post-dated conciliation and was outside the existing ACAS certificate, but allowed an amendment in the interests of justice rather than striking the claim out.