Mr T Fancett - solicitor For the v Ms G Rezaie - counsel — 2021

The judgment was an open preliminary hearing on Mrs D Gullett's attempt to amend the claim. The tribunal did not determine the underlying race discrimination or unfair dismissal merits; it dealt with the amendment application and the respondent's costs application.

The tribunal found the proposed amendment was significantly out of time and had not been properly particularised. It noted that the respondent had already requested further and better particulars of the race discrimination claim, that the claimant had been told any amendment should be detailed before the relisted hearing, and that no amendment application had been made at the earlier preliminary hearing. The claimant had instructed solicitors only eight days before the hearing, but the tribunal did not accept that this explained the delay. Applying Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore and Vaughan v Modality Partnership, and referring to Chandhok v Tirkey, the tribunal held that several proposed allegations were outside the original ET1, some lacked a nexus to employment, some were too general, and the limitation issue had not been addressed.

The tribunal said only allegation (v), concerning a work dinner on 27 October 2018, had been in the original claim, but even that had not been sufficiently particularised. It therefore refused the amendment. Because the claimant had persisted with a defective amendment application, and the respondent had acted reasonably in correspondence and in bringing the matter before the tribunal, the costs threshold was met. The tribunal awarded the respondent £1,580 for solicitor's fees and £1,400 for counsel's fees, totalling £2,980 plus VAT, and varied the case management directions for the final hearing.