Mr S Liberadski, Counsel For the v Mr E Aston, solicitor — 2020

At a preliminary hearing by telephone on 19 October 2020, Employment Judge Bedeau considered the claimant's application to amend her pleaded claims against Image IT Ltd t/a Granger Hill. The original claim form had alleged automatic unfair dismissal, dismissal contrary to s.98(4) ERA 1996, and direct sex and pregnancy discrimination. The proposed amendment sought to clarify that the claimant was an employee and/or worker and to add or re-label claims including automatic unfair dismissal under reg. 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, unfair dismissal under s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996 in the alternative, direct sex discrimination, direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and detriment/unfavourable-treatment claims under reg. 19 MPLR and s.18 EqA 2010.

The tribunal applied the Selkent approach and referred to Ali v Office of National Statistics, Cocking v Sandhurst, Ahuja v Ingham, New Star Asset Management, Cooper and Woodhouse. It balanced the nature of the amendments, time limits, timing of the application, and prejudice to each side. The judge found that the final statement of case did not introduce new factual allegations; it mainly applied legal labels to facts already pleaded, including the allegation that Ms Vincent had taken over the claimant's work while the claimant was on maternity leave.

Employment Judge Bedeau held that refusing the amendment could leave the claimant without any claims if she later failed on employee status, whereas the respondents' prejudice was mainly the need to meet additional legal argument rather than new evidence. The application to amend was therefore granted. The judge stated that no findings of fact on the merits were made at this hearing, and the substantive claims remained to be determined separately.