Case 2501552/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Matthews v Thirteen Housing Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501552/2021
- Decision date
- 26 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge AE Pitt
- Venue
- via Common Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Matthews was employed by Thirteen Housing Group Limited from 7 January 2000 until 12 July 2021 in an assistive technology support role. Her ET1, presented on 26 September 2021, already included unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination, holiday pay, arrears of pay and notice pay. After a preliminary hearing on 14 December 2021, she applied on 10 January 2022 to amend the claim to add harassment allegations against Paul Benson, and the tribunal recorded that no such bullying allegation had been included in the ET1.
Applying the principles in Kuznetsov v Royal Bank of Scotland, Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore, Olayemi v Athena Medical Centre and others, Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, and section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal considered delay, the reason for delay, ignorance of rights, the merits of the proposed amendment and prejudice to both parties. It found that the claimant had not explained why the earlier matters, including allegations dating back to 2010 to 2017, had not been raised sooner, and rejected her explanation that she only later realised the conduct might amount to harassment. The tribunal also noted that she had discussed Mr Benson's behaviour with her trade union representative as early as 2010, which indicated that she knew she could complain.
The tribunal refused the amendment in relation to the historic allegations because of the substantial delay and the prejudice to the respondent in having to meet very old matters. For the later complaints from 2019 to 2021, it again found that the claimant had not explained why the conduct was said to be harassment because of age, and that many of the matters were ordinary work-management or health-related issues rather than age harassment. It observed that the health-related matters had the appearance of disability claims, but the claimant was not pursuing disability discrimination. The application to amend was refused in full and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to add harassment allegations because of age against Paul Benson. This was an amendment decision, not a substantive merits determination. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Kuznetsov v Royal Bank of Scotland [2017] EWCA Civ 43
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Olayemi v Athena Medical Centre and others EAT 0913/10
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust 2021 ICR D5
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.