Case 2405006/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Solanki v Home Office — 2025
- Case reference
- 2405006/2022
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Solanki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing concerning amendment applications, disability status and further case management. The Tribunal considered the claimant's application to amend the claim to add direct and indirect race discrimination complaints about the withdrawal of an offer for a Project Support Officer role and the later failure to offer the same position.
The Tribunal found that the proposed race discrimination claim was a substantive new cause of action, not a minor amendment or relabelling of the existing disability discrimination claim. It noted that the proposed amended claim would be out of time, that there was no good explanation for why the application had not been made earlier, and that permitting it would risk further delay to a final hearing that had already been postponed.
Balancing hardship and the interests of justice, the Tribunal found that more hardship would be caused to the respondent if the amendment were allowed. The amendment application was therefore not granted. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to add direct and indirect race discrimination complaints. The substantive race discrimination complaints were not finally determined on their merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 30 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore 1996 ICR 836
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership 2021 ICR 535
- just and equitable extension of time
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.