Park v Aramark Defence Services Limited — 2019

At the preliminary hearing on 16 December 2019, Employment Judge I. Atack Archibald considered the claimant’s application under rule 29 to amend his claim. The original ET1 complained of unfair dismissal and had also ticked disability discrimination and holiday pay. By email on 2 September 2019, the claimant said he wanted to add direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment. The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act.

The tribunal refused the amendment. It held that the ET1 and the later email did not give fair notice of the three proposed claims. For direct discrimination, the tribunal said there was no pleaded basis showing less favourable treatment because of disability and no comparator. For reasonable adjustments, it said there was no pleaded provision, criterion or practice, physical feature, or auxiliary aid, and no pleaded substantial disadvantage. For harassment, it said there was no pleaded link to disability and no allegation of unwanted conduct meeting section 26.

Applying Selkent Bus Co v Moore, the tribunal treated the proposed additions as new claims rather than clarification of the existing claim. It also said the proposed claims had little prospect of success as pleaded, relying on Gillett v Bridge Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust, and noted that the primary time limit under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 had expired. The tribunal concluded that the balance of hardship favoured the respondent and refused the amendment. No monetary award was made.