Eriarhemhien Fortune Udomhiaye v London General Transport Services Limited t/a Go Ahead London — 2021

The claimant, a bus driver employed from October 2019 to July 2020, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after a road traffic collision with a pedestrian. His ET1 ticked only unfair dismissal, and the respondent argued that he did not have the two years' service needed for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.

The tribunal held, following Leicester University Students' Union v Mahomed, that the qualifying-period point was not a bar to jurisdiction, but it remained a precondition to success on the unfair dismissal claim. It then considered the claimant's application to amend, which sought to add a health and safety dismissal complaint under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996, direct race discrimination, and wrongful dismissal.

Applying Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore, Rule 29, Rule 2 and Guidance Note 1, the tribunal found each proposed amendment to be a substantial new ground of complaint. It held that the proposed claims were out of time, that it was not satisfied that time should be extended on a reasonably practicable or just and equitable basis, and that the delay and manner of the application weighed against allowing amendment.

With the amendments refused, only the original unfair dismissal claim remained. Because the claimant had not been employed for two years, the tribunal dismissed the claim and said it had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 37. The respondent's costs application succeeded under Rule 76(1)(b), but the tribunal reduced the requested £1,250 to £400 in view of the claimant's means.