Mr Patrick Taggart v Falkirk Council — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing. The claimant's original ET1 was accepted as an unfair dismissal claim, described in the judgment as unfair constructive dismissal. He had referred to discrimination and victimisation in general terms, but had not ticked protected characteristic boxes, had not identified a protected characteristic, protected act, protected disclosure or detriments, and had stated on the form that he did not have a disability.

The claimant later applied to amend his claim to add age, sex and disability discrimination, and also advanced material referring to victimisation. The Tribunal refused the amendment application. It found the proposed amendments were significant new causes of action rather than relabelling of already pleaded facts, would broaden the factual and legal enquiry, were likely to require further particulars, witnesses and documents, and would cause greater hardship and prejudice to the respondents than refusal would cause to the claimant. The Tribunal took account of the claimant's status as an unrepresented party but concluded that refusing the amendments accorded with the overriding objective.

The Tribunal then considered strike out. It recorded that the claimant confirmed he was not bringing a whistleblowing complaint. Because the amendment application had been refused and the claim form still did not set out a proper basis for discrimination or victimisation complaints, the Tribunal struck out the claim save for unfair constructive dismissal, on the basis that any complaints of age, sex or disability discrimination or victimisation had no reasonable prospect of success. The unfair constructive dismissal complaint was ordered to proceed to a full Tribunal Final Hearing.