Case 3304906/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Ben Hassel v Liveperson (UK) Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304906/2023
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Appearances For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Ben Hassel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 1 October 2025, Judge Davison considered the claimant's application to amend his ET1, which had been filed on 28 April 2023. The tribunal applied Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore and Vaughan v Modality Partnership, treating the central question as the balance of injustice and hardship and distinguishing between material that was already within the original claim and new heads of claim, many of which related to events from 2016 to 2022.
The respondent did not oppose continuation of the disability claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, the reasonable-adjustments amendment under sections 20 and 21, or the further particulars at paragraph 5.2, and accepted that some disability particulars were already in the original claim. It also accepted the race allegation so far as it concerned mispronouncing the claimant's name, together with some associated context, but objected to the wider race allegations as separate matters.
The tribunal refused the new disability allegations, the wider race allegations, the victimisation claim, and the proposed collective redundancy/protective award amendment. It found that many of the proposed claims were substantial new heads of claim, that several were dated and time-barred, that some related to witnesses no longer in the respondent's employment, and that the balance of injustice and hardship favoured refusal. It also refused the holiday pay / wages point raised in submissions because no particulars were given and no case was advanced for extending time.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The respondent did not object to the section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim, the reasonable-adjustments amendment under sections 20 and 21, or the further particulars at paragraph 5.2, and accepted that sub-paragraphs 5.1.3, 5.1.7, 5.1.8, 5.1.10, 5.1.11, 5.1.12, 5.1.13 and 5.1.14 were already in the original claim. The tribunal refused the new disability allegations at 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6 and 5.1.9, and later held that the late-added disability allegations were out of time. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Under the direct race discrimination and harassment heading, the respondent accepted the mispronouncing-name allegation in 6.1 and 6.2.1 as part of the claim to be considered and did not object to 6.2.5 to 6.2.7. It objected to 6.2.2 to 6.2.4 as separate allegations, and the tribunal refused the wider new race allegations as part of the amendment application. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The race discrimination/harassment amendment was considered together. The name-mispronunciation material was accepted as part of the existing claim, but the wider new allegations in 6.2.2 to 6.2.4 were refused and the tribunal treated the remaining dispute as a time-barred amendment issue. | Other | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The proposed collective redundancy/protective award amendment was refused. The tribunal noted that the claimant had already been paid statutory redundancy and an enhanced amount, and that the further redundancy-related claim could have been raised earlier. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- balance of injustice and hardship
- Trimble and anor v North Lanarkshire Council and anor
- Conteh v First Security Guards Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.