Case 2500921/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Bainbridge v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (uk) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500921/2024
- Decision date
- 9 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Bainbridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing in Newcastle on 9 January 2025, before Employment Judge Sweeney, the claimant applied to amend the claim form to add complaints of disability discrimination and sex discrimination. The tribunal refused the amendment. It applied the amendment principles from Selkent Bus Company v Moore (1996) UKEAT 151 and found that the proposed discrimination complaints were new heads of claim rather than minor amendments, had not been raised earlier, were historic and substantially out of time, and would increase cost and prejudice to the respondent through the passage of time.
The judgment recorded that the claimant could continue with the pleaded unfair dismissal claim, but that complaint was then dismissed upon withdrawal because the claimant had been employed for less than two years. No monetary award was made and the judgment did not record any other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal on the basis that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Selkent Bus Company v Moore (1996) UKEAT 151
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.