Case 2305705/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Nevin Batra v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305705/2021
- Decision date
- 5 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Phillips Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nevin Batra
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNevis Batra had been employed by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care, on successive fixed-term contracts from 15 October 2018. By the time of this preliminary hearing on 4 October 2023, the live claims were unfair dismissal and less favourable treatment as a fixed-term worker; earlier redundancy pay, London weighting and holiday pay claims had been withdrawn.
On 2 October 2023 the claimant applied to amend his ET1/Particulars to add factual detail to the fixed-term worker allegation and to improve coherence and clarity, following the respondent's requests in the Case Management Agenda and draft List of Issues for particulars and a comparator. The respondent objected that the proposed amendments introduced new factual matters, were out of time, and would require fresh disclosure, witness enquiries and possibly a longer hearing.
Employment Judge G Phillips held that the proposed changes were additional factual detail to existing allegations rather than a new claim or cause of action. Applying the tribunal's case management discretion under Rules 29 and 40, the overriding objective, and the Selkent/Vaughan line of authority, the judge found that the balance of injustice and hardship favoured allowing the amendment. Permission to amend the ET1/Particulars as marked up on 2 October 2023 was granted, and the respondent was given permission to serve an amended response by 31 October 2023. No substantive finding was made on the underlying unfair dismissal or fixed-term worker claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing granted permission to amend the ET1/Particulars. The tribunal did not determine the merits of any substantive employment claim in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 29 case management powers
- Rule 40 procedural discretion
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Presidential Guidance for General Case Management
- Selkent Bus Co v Moore principles
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership balance of injustice and hardship
- Chaudhry v Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
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.