Case 4103802/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone)5 Mr J Taylor v Stated in his ET “employed by adl lift services who lost service contract of north Lanarkshire council housing stock lot 1, that was won by kone lifts, under TUPE, i should have transferred to kone lifts but kone argue TUPE does not apply. i have been left without a job through no fault of my own.” 5. The — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103802/2022
- Decision date
- 13 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain
- Venue
- Chambers
Parties
25 named(sitting alone)5 Mr J Taylor
- Stated in his ET “employed by adl lift services who lost service contract of north Lanarkshire council housing stock lot 1, that was won by kone lifts, under TUPE, i should have transferred to kone lifts but kone argue TUPE does not apply. i have been left without a job through no fault of my own.” 5. The
- Were not legally represented until February 2023. 8. The
- Seeks to add a claim for unlawful deduction from wages under s.13 of ERA. He maintains that - in circumstances whereby the Tribunal found TUPE did not apply – that he remains employed by the
- Seeks to add claims for unlawful deduction from wages under s.13 of ERA; a redundancy payment in terms of s.135 ERA 1996; and wrongful dismissal contrary to s.86 ERA.30 4103802/2022 & 4103932/2022 Page 11. The
- Opposed the application to amend by email of March 2023. In this email the
- 20. It was accepted that the amendment would include new claims but that these were on the same facts and did not substantially alter the nature of the claims against the
- Had not been legally represented until February 2023 and was made in response to new facts and information contained within the
- ’s further and better particulars of March 2023.15 23. The amended claims had reasonable prospects of success. 24. The claims were already pled in the McCorkindale case so there would be no need to amend the
- In that they would be prevented from pursuing a remedy for contractual entitlements. 26. There would be no prejudic to the
- To be given permission to amend the claim. The
- 28. The
- . 29. The
- Submitted that the amendments were not minor in nature. The amendment presented an entirely new and contradictory primary claim and was contrary to the overriding objective.10 30. If alowed the amendment would cause further delay to the proceedings as the
- Would need time to lodge an amended response and the Hearing would need to be postponed to allow sufficient time to deal with the additional claims. 31. The claims were substantially out of time and should not be extended.15 The lack of legal advice was not sufficient as they could have obtained legal advice sooner. 32. The
- Would suffer prejudice and hardship if the amendment was allowed in that additional costs would be incurred. 33. Allowing the amendment would run contrary to the overriding objective.20 34. The claims have “lack of prospects”. 35. The
- Would be facing significant new claims (significant in term of monetary value). 36. The
- Could have presented their claims. Decision 39. In light of the
- ’ Cases As Originally and Currently Pled Clearly Indicated That They Considered Their Employment With the
- ’ submissions were to the effect that the application should not be refused solely because there has been delay in making it as amendments may be made at any stage of the proceedings. Delay in making the application is a discretionary factor. It is relevant to consider why the application was not made earlier. The amendment application was made shortly after the
- Until the
- Presented claims of unfair dismissal. They clearly considered their employment with the Responent to have ended. A claim of wrongful dismissal would have been consistent with the facts and circumstances upon which their original claims were based. 51. If they considered that their employment was continuing with the
- ’ lodged their ET s. Overriding Objective 52. The Tribunal considered that refusal of the application to amend was in accordance with the overriding objective.15 53. The amendment seeks to introduce new claims which proceed on a factual basis contrary to the claims as currently pled. Further, the claims would require response by the
- Had considered their employment ongoing. 56. The application to amend is late in the proceedings with a hearing fixed for 9-12 May 2023. 57. The Tribunal have considerable doubts about the prospect of success of the unlawful deductions claims on the basis of the facts and circumstances relied upon. 4103802/2022 & 4103932/2022 Page 58. The Tribunal considers that there would be considerable prejudice to the
- In the manner suggested. In any event the balance of prejudice favoured the
Claims brought
4 categoriesOutcomes per claim are extracted in a second pass and are not yet published on this page.
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.