Case 2408773/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lynne Palmer v Pladis (UK) Ltd (formerly United Biscuits (UK) Ltd) RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408773/2022
- Decision date
- 21 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Appearances
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lynne Palmer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Lloyd on 14 October 2024 about the claimant’s application to amend her ET1. The claimant sought to add complaints about events before and including November 2021, namely failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to hours and duties, direct disability discrimination relating to redeployment to lighter duties, unpaid leave or sabbatical leave and shorter hours, and direct sex discrimination concerning a failure to give light duties.
The tribunal noted that the ET1, presented on 7 November 2022 with six pages of particulars, did not include complaints about matters before November 2021. A case summary after the January 2023 case management hearing confirmed that the claim was about the respondent’s handling of the claimant’s absence from work while she was awaiting surgery and her dismissal on 15 June 2022. The claimant’s representative first raised possible new pre-November 2021 claims in March 2023, but full particulars were not provided until 15 July 2024.
Applying the amendment principles in rule 29 and the authorities cited, including Cocking v Sandhurst, Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore, Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster plc and Vaughan v Modality Partnership, the tribunal found that the proposed amendment introduced entirely new causes of action and a new factual matrix. It accepted the respondent’s case that permission to amend would require further disclosure and witness evidence and would cause significant additional cost.
The tribunal found the proposed claims were considerably out of time, that no grounds had been shown to extend time, and that the claimant had known about the matters because they were referred to in her resignation letter. It did not accept that health problems prevented the claimant from giving instructions, and it noted that no specific hardship had been identified if amendment were refused. Balancing the parties’ positions, the tribunal held that greater injustice would be caused to the respondent by allowing the amendment and refused permission to amend.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Proposed amendment to add a pre-November 2021 reasonable-adjustments complaint about hours of work and duties at work. Permission to amend was refused; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the proposed claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Proposed amendment to add direct disability discrimination complaints concerning redeployment to lighter duties, a refusal of unpaid leave or sabbatical leave, and a failure to be given shorter working hours. Permission to amend was refused; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the proposed claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Proposed amendment to add a direct sex discrimination complaint about a failure to transfer the claimant to lighter duties before November 2021. Permission to amend was refused; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the proposed claim. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 29
- Rule 2
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster plc
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
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.