Case 4102107/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Edward McCluskey v Represented by:- Mr Tony McGrade –15 Solicitor North Lanarkshire Council — 2018
- Case reference
- 4102107/2017
- Decision date
- 15 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Edward McCluskey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis hearing concerned the claimant's applications to amend his ET1 in an unfair dismissal case brought against North Lanarkshire Council. The claimant, Mr Edward McCluskey, had been employed as a Property Maintenance and Improvement Manager until 11 April 2017 and had presented his claim on 7 July 2017 after ACAS early conciliation, seeking reinstatement if successful.
The tribunal allowed the claimant's amendments in full. It held that the proposed changes did not alter the fundamental legal basis of the case, but provided further factual detail and fair notice, including material said to support the claimant's contention that there was an inconsistency of treatment and an agenda against him. The tribunal rejected the respondents' objections that the amendments were irrelevant or too late, and noted that no final hearing had yet been fixed.
Applying the Selkent principles and the overriding objective, the tribunal balanced the prejudice and hardship to each side and concluded that there were no weighty reasons to refuse the amendments. It recorded that the respondents would have 3 weeks to lodge further and better particulars in reply, and directed the claimant to provide a consolidated Word version of the amended paper apart within 7 days.
The tribunal also ordered that the case be listed for a final hearing in the proposed period of July, August or September 2018, and invited the parties to address whether the case should proceed before a full tribunal or an Employment Judge sitting alone, whether witness statements would be useful, and whether there was any objection to Employment Judge McPherson hearing the case. No liability or remedy decision was made at this stage, and the tribunal did not award any monetary sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This was a preliminary hearing on amendment applications only. The tribunal allowed the claimant's amendments to the unfair dismissal ET1 but expressly stated that no evidence had been heard and it could not come to any view on the merits of the claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 29 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Selkent principles
- Chapman v Simon
- Amin v Wincanton Group Ltd
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- Ahuja v Inghams
- Ladbrokes Racing Ltd v Traynor
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.