Mr M Skorek v Encirc Ltd — 2024

The hearing took place in Manchester in private by CVP on 11 September 2024 before Employment Judge K M Ross sitting alone. The tribunal considered an application to amend the claim under rule 29 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, and referred to the Presidential Guidance on Case Management 2014 together with Selkent Bus Company v Moore and Cocking v Sandhurst.

The tribunal held that an amendment was required. It accepted that the original claim form appeared to point towards an automatic unfair dismissal claim, but the protected disclosure material under section 43B ERA 1996 was new information. The proposed section 103A ERA 1996 claim was therefore not treated as a mere relabelling exercise, and the detriment claim based on disciplinary proceedings was also new, although it was closely linked to the dismissal allegation.

In balancing injustice and hardship, the tribunal found in favour of the claimant. It noted that the claimant had been a litigant in person when presenting the proceedings and spoke English as a second language, that refusing amendment would prevent the public interest disclosure dismissal and detriment claims from being heard, and that the remedy position and the composition of the tribunal could also be affected. The respondent would face some further investigation, but the events were relatively recent and the tribunal considered that a fair hearing remained possible. Any time-limit issue on the detriment claim was not enough to defeat the amendment application in the overall assessment, so the amendment was allowed.