Mr M Ahmed v Buckinghamshire Council — 2025

Mr M Ahmed’s claim form had originally pleaded discrimination complaints on the grounds of race, sex, age and religion or belief. At the earlier case management hearing, the claim against Rebecca Smith was withdrawn, the claims were clarified, and Mr Ahmed was directed to file any amendment application. This judgment dealt only with his 30 September 2024 application to amend the claim to add victimisation said to arise from a 12 February 2024 telephone call from Juliet Williams to his then partner, Ms Skeggs, while she was on maternity leave.

Applying the amendment authorities cited, including Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore, Vaughan v Modality Partnership, Ladbrokes racing Ltd v Traynor, Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd and Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, the tribunal treated the proposed victimisation allegation as a new cause of action based on new facts rather than a mere relabelling. It noted that an earlier addendum had referred to a possible data breach, whereas the later application alleged that the call was made to pressure the claimant to retract his tribunal claim. The tribunal found that allowing the amendment would require fresh investigation and evidence from Juliet Williams and Ms Skeggs, together with amended pleadings, disclosure and witness preparation.

The tribunal also found the application was late and that no plausible explanation for the delay had been given. It concluded that the respondent would suffer injustice and hardship if the amendment were allowed, particularly because the case was already listed for final hearing in May 2026 and further variation could jeopardise that timetable. On a preliminary assessment, the contemporaneous note made by Juliet Williams was consistent with the respondent’s explanation for the call, and there was no note or other evidence from Ms Skeggs supporting the claimant’s account that the purpose of the call was to pressure him to withdraw his claim or that it caused the breakdown of his relationship and the resulting emotional and financial hardship. The application to amend to add victimisation was therefore refused, and the claimant remained able to pursue his existing complaints.