Mrs Sharma (mother) For the v Respondent — 2022

At a preliminary hearing on 24 May 2022 before Employment Judge R Wood, the tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend the ET1. The case had been presented on 12 November 2020 and was described as a claim for breach of contract and/or wrongful dismissal arising from the claimant's dismissal from an apprenticeship on 15 July 2020. The amendment sought to plead that the apprenticeship contract did not comply with ASCLA and should instead be construed as a common law apprenticeship agreement.

The judge applied the Selkent approach, considering the nature of the amendment, the applicable time limits, the timing of the application, the reason for the delay, and prejudice. The application was about 12 months out of time, but the tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for the amendment to have been made within time and that it was reasonable to extend time to allow it. The judge said the issue was a difficult area of law and took into account that the claimant was not legally trained.

The tribunal treated the amendment as relatively minor and considered that the contract's compliance with ASCLA would likely have to be examined in any event when the nature of the apprenticeship contract and the alleged breaches were considered. The judge found that any prejudice to the respondent was not significant, noted that no additional witness evidence would be needed, and accepted that the scope of compensation might broaden only slightly.

No finding was made on the merits of the underlying breach of contract or wrongful dismissal claim because the contract itself had not been seen. The decision was limited to allowing the amendment application.