Claimant v Parkstone Hotel Ltd — 2019

The claimant originally presented claims for unauthorised deduction of wages and holiday pay, which were later withdrawn. At this hearing the tribunal was dealing only with his application to amend the claim so as to add a new complaint of sex discrimination. The tribunal noted that the proposed amendment was a new cause of action and that the original ET1 contained no discrimination complaint.

The tribunal applied the Selkent guidance and section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the proposed sex discrimination claim was out of time and that the claimant had not shown that it was just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal rejected the explanation that mental health difficulties prevented a timely complaint, noting that there was no medical evidence that his mental health affected his ability to bring the claim, that he had contacted ACAS shortly after his employment ended, and that he had carried out online research and knew about employment tribunals.

The tribunal also found the claimant’s evidence inconsistent about when he first learned that discrimination claims could be brought. It accepted that allowing the amendment would cause the respondent additional delay and cost, and it considered that the prejudice to the respondent outweighed the prejudice to the claimant. The application to amend was therefore refused, and the judgment contains no findings on the merits of sex discrimination or any other substantive claim.