Case 4105580/2023 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105580/20235 Held on December 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss D A Vaughan v EE Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 4105580/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105580/20235 Held on December 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss D A Vaughan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a procedural judgment on the claimant's application to amend her pleadings, not a final decision on liability. The claimant had brought proceedings in October 2023 and continued to pursue disability discrimination claims; the judgment records that an age discrimination claim seemed to have fallen away and that an unlawful deduction from wages claim had been withdrawn.
The tribunal applied the authorities on amendment applications and considered the nature of the proposed amendment, time limits, the timing and manner of the application, and the balance of injustice or hardship. It noted that the claimant was a party litigant, had sought to amend from an early stage, and had later obtained assistance in framing her position, while also recognising the respondent's concerns about notice and preparation.
The tribunal allowed the amendment in general, reserving time-bar and any Equality Act 2010 s.123 issues to the full hearing. It allowed a number of pleaded matters as part of the amendment or as background, but did not allow the paragraph 42 incident to proceed as a new harassment claim; that matter was permitted as relevant background only.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal allowed the claimant to amend her pleadings to advance disability discrimination claims, with issues of time bar and any application under s.123 Equality Act 2010 reserved to the full hearing. The substantive merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal did not allow the incident referred to in paragraph 42 of the proposed amendment to proceed as a new harassment claim; it was allowed as relevant background only. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that, before the short judgment was dictated, the claimant withdrew her claim for unlawful deduction from wages. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the age discrimination claim seemed to have fallen away, but does not record a formal withdrawal or merits determination. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] ICR 535
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd [2014] ICR 209
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones [2008] IRLR 128
- Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Traynor UKEAT/0067/06
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.