Miss L Thompson v UV Tanning Lounge Limited — 2019

At a CVP hearing before Employment Judge Dyal sitting alone, the tribunal considered the claimant's application, made on 26 May 2020, to amend her claim so as to add disability discrimination allegations. Miss L Thompson had worked for UV Tanning Lounge Limited as a salon manager and resigned with effect from 4 October 2019. She contacted ACAS on 25 October 2019, received an early conciliation certificate on 18 November 2019, and presented her claim on 2 December 2019. Her original form ticked the marriage/civil partnership box only, although the narrative referred to mental health concerns and treatment at work.

The tribunal found that the original claim form came close to, but did not itself raise, a disability discrimination claim. It accepted that the claimant was acting without legal advice when she completed the form and that her subjective account of mental ill-health was truthful, but there was no medical evidence before the tribunal and it could not make a meaningful assessment of the extent of any mental health problems during the relevant period. The judge held that the proposed disability amendments were not a mere relabelling exercise, although they would broaden the factual and legal inquiry, and that the complaints were out of time so time had to be extended if the amendment was to be allowed.

Applying the Selkent framework and the authorities cited in the reasons, including Abercrombie, Gillett, Rathakrishnan, British Coal v Keeble, and the just and equitable test under the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal concluded that the balance of hardship favoured the claimant. It accepted that the respondent would face additional burden in defending the wider disability case, but found no forensic prejudice from delay and held that refusal would shut the claimant out of the tribunal altogether. The amendment was therefore allowed and time extended, subject to the specific carve-outs recorded in the judgment. The marriage/civil partnership complaints were withdrawn and the judgment did not decide the merits of any discrimination claim or award compensation.