Miss R Brindley v Tillycairn Place Represented by: Ormiston Crescent Ms C Curran,15 Dundee Friend Angus DD UG Zara UK Ltd — 2021

This was a remote preliminary hearing on amendment, not a merits hearing. The respondent argued that the claimant's further particulars provided on 2 February 2021 introduced new allegations not contained in the ET1 and should not be allowed, while the claimant said they were closely linked to the existing pleadings and were simply further detail. The tribunal noted that the claimant was represented by a friend who was not legally qualified.

Applying Rule 29 and the overriding objective in Rule 2, and citing Selkent, Ali, Abercrombie, Housing Corporation v Bryant and Pruzhanskaya, the tribunal held that the additional material substantially expanded the factual pleading already advanced rather than introducing new legal claims. It found that the original claim form was narrative in style and used words such as "for instance" and "such as", indicating that the pleaded facts were not exhaustive, and that the new material would involve broadly the same areas of enquiry and witnesses.

On time limits, the tribunal said no direct new-claim time bar issue arose because no new legal claim was being added, but it also considered the Equality Act 2010 time-limit authorities it had cited. It noted that the added allegations concerned harassment and direct discrimination, including whether conduct was because of the claimant's gender reassignment for the purposes of sections 13 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010, and that if needed there was at least an arguable basis for conduct extending over a period or a just and equitable extension. The tribunal found the prejudice to the respondent limited and outweighed by the prejudice to the claimant if the amendment were refused, so the amendment was allowed.

The tribunal also recorded agreed extensions to the timetable for the respondent's response, document exchange, bundle preparation and witness statements, and noted that the claimant might wish to clarify her comparator position for the section 13 claim. No monetary award was made and no substantive discrimination, breach of contract, wages or working time claim was finally determined at this hearing.