Case 4110799/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Pullar v British Telecommunications plc — 2019

Case reference: 4110799/2019
Decision date: 4 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge A Kemp
Venue: Dundee

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Pullar

Respondent

British Telecommunications plc

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The hearing was a preliminary hearing on case management. The claimant's original claim form ticked only holiday pay, but also referred to two heart attacks, requests for reasonable adjustments, and alleged failures to implement them. The respondent objected to treating later material as adding a disability discrimination claim, arguing that any amendment was out of time and should not be allowed.

The tribunal treated the claimant's 28 October 2019 document as an application to amend. It found that the original claim form contained at least some factual pleading about reasonable adjustments, which was not relevant to holiday pay and was sufficient to draw comment in the response form about possible discrimination. Taking account of the limited prejudice, the relatively early stage of proceedings, and the claimant acting in person, the tribunal allowed the amendment for a claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 only.

The tribunal did not decide the merits of either the reasonable adjustments claim or the holiday pay claim. It directed the respondent to provide further particulars of its defence to the amended claim and ordered a further preliminary hearing to manage that claim and the remaining holiday pay issue.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The tribunal allowed the claimant's application to amend the claim form to include a reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The merits of the discrimination claim were not determined in this judgment.	Other	Disability	—
Holiday pay	The holiday pay claim remained to be addressed at a further preliminary hearing for case management. The tribunal did not determine liability or remedy in this judgment.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.