Case 2302960/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Toner of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302960/2018
- Decision date
- 18 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Toner of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 11 March 2020, Employment Judge Truscott QC considered the claimant's application to amend his ET1 to add a claim of perceived disability discrimination. The existing pleaded case had referred to age discrimination, and the proposed amendment arose from the same dismissal and appeal material, including the appeal rejection letter saying that the claimant's symptoms appeared to have resolved but that the length of his absence and his own evidence indicated an underlying issue and susceptibility to further injury.
The tribunal applied the Selkent amendment guidance and treated the proposed pleading as a category (ii) amendment, meaning a new cause of action added on the basis of the same facts. It considered prejudice to both sides and accepted that the respondent would need to address the new issue, but found there would be no new medical evidence and no material increase in the length or complexity of the hearing. The claimant would suffer greater prejudice if the amendment were refused.
The tribunal also dealt with time limits. It found the proposed new claim was out of time by more than 10 months, but accepted the claimant's explanation for the delay, including the later reliance on Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey. Although the claimant had legal advice by 30 November 2018, the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time. Leave to amend was therefore granted, and the respondent was allowed 28 days to file an answer to the amended claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | This was a preliminary hearing on the claimant's application to amend the ET1 to add a perceived disability discrimination claim; the tribunal permitted the amendment and did not decide the merits of the discrimination allegation. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Ali v Office of National Statistics
- Evershed v New Star Asset Management Holdings Ltd
- Galilee v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Hutchison v Westward Television Ltd
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey
- just and equitable extension
- overriding objective
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.
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.