Mr P Noel v Lyreco UK Ltd — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing dealt with on the papers. The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend his claim so as to add allegations that the respondent was in fundamental breach of contract on 6 February 2019, convened a disciplinary process, and that any purported reinstatement was a sham. The judge held that these points were already pleaded in substance, or were only a minor clarification of an existing constructive unfair dismissal claim, and that refusing the amendment would create a clear injustice to the claimant.

The respondent's only identified prejudice was the cost of resisting the amendment, which the tribunal did not treat as sufficient. The judge referred to the amendment principles in Selkent Bus Company v Moore (1996) UKEAT 151 and said the new pleading would not involve substantially different areas of enquiry from the existing claim. The preliminary hearing listed for 4 January 2021 was vacated, and the respondent's time to file a draft amended response was extended to 31 December 2020.

The tribunal did not decide the respondent's application to exclude evidence said to be protected by privilege or s.111A ERA 1996. It said the admissibility point depended on what had happened at the meeting on 6 February 2019 and was too fact-sensitive to determine without hearing evidence. The same approach was taken to the time-limit issue, because whether there had been a dismissal or a resignation, and when either occurred, remained in dispute and had to be resolved at the full merits hearing.