Mr Jonathan Sinclair v [Written Submissions] Bilfinger (UK) Limited — 2026

The claimant had brought proceedings against Bilfinger (UK) Limited alleging unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. He said he had been dismissed as a direct result of an instruction from INEOS FPS Limited that he was no longer to be permitted on its site. After instructing solicitors, he applied to amend the claim by providing further and better particulars and to add INEOS FPS Limited as a second respondent. Bilfinger objected.

The Tribunal allowed the application under rule 35 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Employment Judge Mcfatridge found that there were issues falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction between the claimant and the proposed second respondent because the claimant alleged that his dismissal was disability-related discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act and that INEOS had instructed Bilfinger to remove him from site for discriminatory reasons. The judgment also records allegations concerning section 111 of the Equality Act in relation to inducement or instruction between Bilfinger and INEOS.

The Tribunal held that the claimant had pleaded enough information at this stage and that the precise relationship between Bilfinger and INEOS, including the construction services agreement, was a matter for the hearing. It found that adding INEOS was in the interests of justice, noting that the claimant had not been professionally represented when he submitted the original claim and that the application was made shortly after solicitors were instructed.

The further and better particulars were accepted as an amendment. The Tribunal directed that the claim be served on INEOS FPS Limited, with 28 days for a response. No finding was made on the merits of the unfair dismissal or disability discrimination claims, and no remedy was awarded in this judgment.