Mrs P Pirie v Blaze Manufacturing Solutions Limited — 2020

At a preliminary hearing on 17 December 2019, Employment Judge J Hendry considered the claimant's opposed application to amend her ET1. The claimant had originally pleaded arrears of pay, unlawful deductions from wages, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract, but had not ticked unfair dismissal. Her case was that her resignation was demanded after a dispute about pay rise and bonus terms, and she sought to add an unfair dismissal claim based on assertion of a statutory right.

The tribunal applied Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore and noted the guidance in Chandhok v Tirkey that an ET1 must set out the essence of the case. It accepted the respondent's submission that the existing pleadings were unclear and that adding unfair dismissal was not a simple relabelling exercise. The judge also referred to the claimant's evidence that she had not appreciated she might bring an unfair dismissal claim and to Perth and Kinross Council v Townsley on ignorance of rights.

Balancing hardship, the tribunal found limited practical prejudice to the respondent because the dispute involved a small number of people and a short period of events. It concluded that the claimant should be allowed 21 days to lodge a written amendment, with 14 days for the respondent to answer if so advised, but the order recorded that leave to amend was refused meantime and that the respondent could renew objections if the amendment was not in proper form. No substantive determination of liability or remedy was made in this judgment.