Case 3312213/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J. Wallace, Counsel For v Ms T. Patala, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312213/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J. Wallace, Counsel For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S. Lee worked as a bus driver for Abellio London Ltd from October 2014 until his summary dismissal on 10 June 2020. This preliminary hearing concerned his application to amend the ET1, presented on 6 October 2020, to add wrongful dismissal and several discrimination-related complaints. The tribunal recorded that the disciplinary allegations arose from driving on 6 February 2020, that the Claimant was signed off sick from 21 February to 31 July 2020, that he had union assistance during the process, and that his appeal was heard on 26 August 2020 and rejected by letter dated 14 October 2020.
The tribunal granted the amendment to add wrongful dismissal. It held that this was a case of relabelling because the only factual and evidential difference was whether the conduct found by the Respondent amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct. The judgment states that any time-limit issue for that amendment would be dealt with at the final hearing, and the existing unfair dismissal claim continued in any event.
The tribunal refused the proposed amendments for direct disability discrimination, direct sex discrimination, victimisation, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and discrimination arising from disability. Applying the Selkent approach and the cases cited in the reasons, it held that these were new causes of action rather than mere relabelling, that the Claimant had the material facts available by the time of dismissal and when he filed the ET1, and that the appeal documents did not support the discrimination allegations. It also relied on the delay in seeking amendment until 16 March 2021, and on the additional delay, cost, and case-management burden that the new claims would create.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Application to amend to add wrongful dismissal was granted. The tribunal said this was a case of relabelling and did not decide the merits of any dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Application to amend to add direct disability discrimination was refused at the preliminary hearing as a new cause of action rather than relabelling. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Application to amend to add direct sex discrimination was refused with the other discrimination-related amendments. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Application to amend to add victimisation was refused. The reasons note that the only related point in the documents was a complaint about Marta Leszcynska dealing with the dismissal because of an earlier grievance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Application to amend to add failure to make reasonable adjustments was refused. This claim type is not separately enumerated in the output taxonomy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Application to amend to add discrimination arising from disability was refused. This claim type is not separately enumerated in the output taxonomy. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Vaughan v Modality Partnership Limited
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Selkent Bus Co Limited v Moore
- Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Limited
- Overriding Objective under Regulation 2 of the Employment Tribunal Regulations 2013
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.