Case 4102914/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Borland v Fife Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102914/2016
- Decision date
- 2 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Borland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had brought an equal pay claim in 2016 as part of a multiple. After his solicitors withdrew in 2021, he continued in person and sought to advance claims based on different comparators and legal bases from those in the original multiple claim.
The tribunal treated the correspondence as an application to amend. Applying the Selkent approach, it found that the proposed amendment would substantially alter the claim and amount to an entirely new head of claim, including allegations involving historical comparators, pay-outs to others, and proposed comparisons not previously pleaded.
The tribunal found that the application came very late, that several proposed comparisons raised serious time-limit and remedy difficulties, and that the respondent would face hardship in investigating poorly specified claims going back many years. Balancing the injustice and hardship, the tribunal refused permission to amend. It did not strike out the remaining unamended claim, instead directing the claimant to say whether he wished to proceed with it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend his equal pay claim. It did not determine the merits of the unamended claim and noted that any strike-out issue would need to be dealt with subsequently. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- s129 Equality Act
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.