Case 2405437/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Adu v Department for Work and Pensions and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405437/2020
- Decision date
- 3 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr A Adu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the claimant's application to amend existing race discrimination proceedings to add further claims of victimisation, harassment and race discrimination. The tribunal noted that the existing issues had been settled at a Preliminary Case Management Hearing on 21 January 2021, where the claimant confirmed that other factual matters were background and context only.
The tribunal found that the proposed amendments appeared to be new causes of action rather than merely relabelling facts already relied on. Allowing them would likely require another Preliminary Case Management Hearing, amended responses, revisited disclosure and additional witness statements, which could not be completed before the listed February 2022 final hearing.
The tribunal found the proposed new claims were significantly out of time and that the claimant had not provided sufficiently convincing reasons for an extension. Balancing injustice and hardship, including delay, fading memories, additional cost and the proximity of the final hearing, the tribunal concluded that hardship to the respondents would be greater if the application were granted than hardship to the claimant if refused. The amendment application was refused.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The claimant's application to amend to add a victimisation claim against the second respondent was refused; the substantive merits of the proposed claim were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The claimant's application to amend to add harassment claims against the second and third respondents was refused; the substantive merits of the proposed claims were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's application to amend to add a race discrimination claim against the second respondent was refused; the substantive merits of the proposed claim were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Rule 29 case management orders
- Presidential Guidance Note 1: Amendment of the Claim and Response Including Adding and Removing a Party
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Abercrombie & Ors v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.