Case 4104119/2020 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: 4104119/20 & 4104158/20 (P) Held on December 2020 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr K Fulke st v Represented by Mr M Briggs, Solicitor Wipro Limited st and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104119/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
4 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: 4104119/20 & 4104158/20 (P) Held on December 2020 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr K Fulke st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with a procedural Rule 34 application arising from two related claims. The first claim, 4104119/20, had originally proceeded only against Highland Council because the early conciliation certificate numbers for Wipro and Northgate had been transcribed incorrectly and the claim was rejected as against those respondents. A second claim, 4104158/20, was then lodged against Wipro and Northgate in identical terms, but they maintained that it was out of time.
Applying Rule 34 together with the Cocking and Selkent guidance, the tribunal treated the question as a balancing exercise focused on the relative injustice and hardship of granting or refusing the amendment. It accepted that the prospective first and third respondents could object in the interests of justice. The tribunal noted that Wipro and Northgate had already been through early conciliation, that the second claim contained identical particulars, and that the application was not a new factual case. Although the amendment application was made after the three-month time limit, lateness was only one factor.
The tribunal granted the application to add Wipro and Northgate to case 4104119/20. It held that refusing the amendment could deprive the claimants of pursuing a successful claim and leave them to seek a remedy against their solicitors, whereas granting it would not prejudice the respondents because they had already received the identical second claim and the cogency of the evidence would not be affected. The tribunal also noted that the original rejection had been caused by a minor typographical error which, under amended rules, would not now have resulted in rejection. As a result, case 4104158/20 was sisted to avoid any res judicata issue, and the ET3 responses already filed in that case were to stand as responses to the first claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Rule 34 application to add Wipro UK Ltd and Northgate Public Services (UK) Ltd as first and third respondents to case 4104119/20. The tribunal granted the application; the underlying unfair dismissal, redundancy payment and notice pay issues were not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 34
- Cocking
- Selkent
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- interests of justice
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.