Ms L Simpson, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025

The hearing at Bury St Edmunds on 27 March 2025 concerned the claimant's application to amend his ET1, not a final determination of the merits. The claimant had been employed as a surveyor from 11 March 2013 until dismissal on 9 January 2024, said by the respondent to be on redundancy grounds. His original claim form included unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosures, direct and indirect disability discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability. By the amendment application dated 22 January 2025, he sought to particularise symptoms said to arise from his disability, including fatigue, memory loss, insomnia, anxiety and panic attacks, and to add or expand a s.15 Equality Act point based on those matters.

Employment Judge S Moore applied the balancing exercise in Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore and Vaughan v Modality Partnership UK. The judge held that the proposed amendment was not merely further particularisation of existing allegations but a new factual case, because it would require substantial new enquiries going back to 2017 about the effect of the claimant's mental health on his work and the adjustments said to have been made over time. The judge also noted that the proposed claim was out of time, that no explanation had been given for why it was not included earlier, and that the claimant had been legally represented since presenting the claim.

The tribunal accepted that the final hearing was not listed until November 2026 and therefore the amendment would not derail the timetable, but it found that the respondent would still need to amend its response substantially and deal with a wider body of factual and medical evidence, including events said to have occurred up to nine years earlier. Balancing the hardship on both sides, the tribunal refused the amendment. The judgment does not decide the underlying unfair dismissal, whistleblowing or discrimination complaints and records no remedy.