Case 3311679/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Whitrid v Beaucare Medical Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311679/2021
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloom
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Whitrid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on 20 April 2022 before Employment Judge Bloom sitting alone. The claimant had presented his ET1 on 17 June 2021 after dismissal on 13 May 2021 for alleged gross misconduct. At the hearing he confirmed that he no longer pursued the unlawful deductions of wages / holiday pay claim, and that claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The respondent’s strike-out application, based on an alleged threat of violence against a witness, was withdrawn after the respondent accepted there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation on the balance of probabilities.
The judge then considered the claimant’s application to amend the claim to include disability discrimination, applying Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore. He accepted the claimant’s evidence that, about two hours after submitting the original ET1, he emailed the tribunal asking to correct the form to show disability, and that he later supplied particulars after a case management order. The judge found that this was not a mere relabelling exercise, that the amendment application had been made on 17 June 2021, and that the amended discrimination claims were presented within the statutory time limit.
The claimant had depression and had been taking medication, and the respondent conceded that he was disabled for the purposes of the amendment application. The amended particulars identified claims of victimisation, harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The judge held that granting the amendment would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent because the allegations overlapped with the unfair dismissal case, the respondent held the grievance material, and most relevant witnesses were still employed. The unfair dismissal claim remained live for a final hearing; no merits finding or monetary award was made at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant said he intended to continue pursuing unfair dismissal, and no merits finding was made at this open preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant no longer intended to pursue this claim, described in the judgment as unlawful deductions of wages / holiday pay, and it was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The application to amend to include disability discrimination was granted. No merits determination was made at this hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The amended particulars identified victimisation as one of the disability-related claims. No merits determination was made at this hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The amended particulars identified harassment as one of the disability-related claims. No merits determination was made at this hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
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.