Case 3202505/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs L Sylvester v Barnes & Partners Solicitors — 2019

Case reference: 3202505/2018
Decision date: 18 May 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Jones After

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs L Sylvester

Respondent

Barnes & Partners Solicitors

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At this preliminary hearing on 10 May 2019, Employment Judge Jones considered the claimant's written application of 25 March 2019 and her later letter of 8 April 2019 seeking to amend her case to add indirect sex discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal under sections 57A and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and breach of contract. The tribunal applied the Selkent Bus Co. v Moore approach, taking account of the nature of the amendments, time limits, and the timing and manner of the application.

The tribunal refused the indirect sex discrimination amendment because the complaint was not clearly set out. It said the claimant had not explained the provision, criterion or practice relied on, how she said she was disadvantaged because of her sex, or how the respondent would have known that she was more likely to be late on the third day. The tribunal also noted that the new allegations all related to the October 2018 induction and had not been included in the ET1.

The proposed automatic unfair dismissal complaint under sections 57A and 99 ERA 1996 was also refused. The tribunal held that it was a new cause of action and that no material had been provided from which it could conclude that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within the three-month time limit. The proposed breach of contract complaint was refused for similar reasons: it was a new cause of action, was out of time, and no basis was given for extending time under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994.

The judgment therefore refused the application to amend in full. It recorded that the existing complaint of direct sex discrimination remained as set out in the preliminary hearing minutes, and that the liability and remedy hearing for that complaint was listed for 10 to 11 October 2019 at East London Hearing Centre. No monetary award was made in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	The claimant sought to add an indirect sex discrimination complaint in her amendment application, but leave to amend was refused. The tribunal said the complaint was not clearly pleaded or understood and that it had not been properly explained.	Other	Sex	—
Unfair dismissal	The claimant sought to add an automatic unfair dismissal complaint under sections 57A and 99 ERA 1996, but leave to amend was refused. The tribunal held it was a new cause of action, out of time, and there was no material showing it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time.	Other	—	—
Breach of contract	The claimant sought to add a breach of contract complaint, but leave to amend was refused. The tribunal treated it as a new cause of action, noted it was presented outside the three-month time limit, and found no basis for extending time.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.