Mr. J. Morgan v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021

Mr J Morgan was employed by East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust as an Emergency Care Practitioner from 1 October 2015. The respondent accepted at the hearing that his noise-induced sensorineural deafness and tinnitus met the definition of disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010, and that he was disabled at all material times. The hearing before Employment Judge Mason on 15 February 2022 was limited to the claimant’s application to amend his disability discrimination claim.

The original claim form, presented on 20 April 2020, pleaded failures to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010 and disability-related discrimination under section 15. Applying Selkent and the balance of injustice and hardship, the tribunal allowed a limited amendment to the reasonable adjustments claim. It held that adding 'to respond to calls in an urban area' was a clarification or extension of the existing PCP about working in an urban environment, rather than a new claim.

The tribunal refused the proposed new reasonable-adjustments allegation that the claimant should have been required not to accompany patients in a DSA (ambulance). It found that this was a new claim, that the relevant time limit had expired, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. In reaching that conclusion, the judge noted that the claimant had had assistance from UNISON and Thompsons, had seen the grounds of complaint before the claim was presented, and had not raised the issue at the April 2021 preliminary hearing when represented by counsel.

The tribunal also refused the proposed harassment claim based on an alleged comment by Mr Round on 2 February 2021, and refused to let that allegation be added as part of the section 15 claim. It found that the allegation was entirely new, was out of time, and had not been raised at the earlier case management hearing. The tribunal said the respondent would face additional cost and preparation difficulties if the amendments were allowed, and that those consequences outweighed the hardship to the claimant. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were made at this hearing.