Case 2600924/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lawrence v British Gas Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600924/2020
- Decision date
- 13 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lawrence
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing about the claimant's application to amend an existing claim. The existing claim included constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and breach of contract relating to notice pay. The tribunal recorded that the original pleadings and later particulars did not include a holiday pay claim, a disability discrimination by association claim, a harassment claim based on the alleged remarks, or broader allegations about isolation, targets, age or culture.
The tribunal refused the proposed amendment for direct disability discrimination by association. It found this was a wholly new cause of action, substantially out of time, with no satisfactory explanation for why it had not been brought earlier, and that allowing it would prejudice the respondent by requiring further preparation close to the listed hearing. The tribunal also refused permission to add the holiday pay claim, noting that the claimant had raised the issue with his solicitors in March 2020 but it had not been pleaded, and that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent.
The tribunal refused amendments that would widen the case into allegations of a long-standing discriminatory culture relating to disabled or older employees. It allowed a narrower amendment permitting a harassment claim concerning the alleged remarks by Mr Wier, including the alleged 'blow job' remark, insofar as they related to events around August 2019 and the immediate run-up to disciplinary proceedings. The merits of the existing claims and the permitted amended claim were not determined; directions were given and the final hearing was relisted.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal permitted an amendment to add a harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 concerning alleged remarks by Mr Wier, including the alleged 'blow job' remark, insofar as they related to events in the immediate run-up to the disciplinary process around August/September 2019. The merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused permission to amend to add a new direct discrimination by association claim concerning time off connected with the claimant's son. The merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal refused permission to amend to add a holiday pay claim for 66 hours. The merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal refused permission to amend to advance a wider claim based on an alleged ageist culture concerning older long-standing employees. The merits were not determined. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal refused permission to amend to advance a wider claim based on an alleged long-standing discriminatory culture concerning disabled employees, but allowed the claimant to rely on disability-related matters within the compass of events from around August 2019 and the inception of disciplinary proceedings. The merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Selkent principles
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore 1996 ICR 836 EAT
- Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd EAT0092/07
- just and equitable extension of time
- reasonably practicable test
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 ICR 53 CA
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 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.