Case 4100443/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(in chambers) Mr T Campbell v Written submissions by: Ms L Neil (Solicitor) Powerteam Electrical Services (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100443/2020
- Decision date
- 24 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(in chambers) Mr T Campbell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 24 January 2020 the claimant lodged claims for unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy pay and unlawful deduction from wages. In this judgment, the tribunal dealt only with the claimant's application, made on 19 May 2020, to amend the ET1 to add a complaint of automatically unfair dismissal based on an alleged denial of the right to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings. The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing among other things that it raised new factual issues and was out of time.
Applying Rule 29 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and the guidance in Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore and Abercrombie & Others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd, the tribunal held that the proposed amendment was a substantial one rather than a minor re-labelling exercise. It considered that the new pleading would involve different factual and legal enquiries, including whether the claimant had been called to a disciplinary hearing, whether he had sought to exercise the statutory right to be accompanied, and whether dismissal was for that reason.
The tribunal also treated limitation as a material factor. It noted that any complaint of this kind would be subject to the three-month time limit, that the date of dismissal was disputed, and that the amendment was sought several months after the events in question and shortly before the substantive hearing. The tribunal rejected the explanation that the material was unavailable in the previous representative's file, saying the relevant facts were known to the claimant and could have been raised earlier.
The application was refused because the proposed claim did not plead that dismissal was because the claimant sought to exercise the right to be accompanied, and therefore did not disclose a claim with reasonable prospects of success. The judgment does not decide the merits of the original unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, or unlawful deduction claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application to amend the claim to add automatically unfair dismissal under the right to be accompanied was refused. The tribunal did not determine the merits of any underlying unfair dismissal claim in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 29 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Abercrombie & Others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
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.