Case 4123817/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Mulholland v Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123817/2018
- Decision date
- 23 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Mulholland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim that she had been unfairly constructively dismissed. At this preliminary hearing the respondents denied the claim and sought strike out or, alternatively, a deposit order. The immediate issue was the claimant's late application, lodged on 17 May 2019, to add further and better particulars said to expand on the original ET1 by setting out additional facts, including matters said to relate to a July 2018 grievance appeal meeting and the effect of a restructure on her role as Events Team Leader.
Employment Judge McFatridge held that the further and better particulars were properly treated as an application to amend because they introduced significant new facts not contained in the original claim. He found that the amendment did not change the basis of the claim, that the original claim had been presented in time, and that the tribunal retained jurisdiction. The judge noted that the application had been made very late and said it was unreasonable in the extreme to wait until the Friday before the hearing, but considered the amendment under the overriding objective and the guidance in Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore.
Applying the balance of hardship, the tribunal allowed the amendment. It accepted the claimant's case that refusing it could leave her unable to advance parts of her claim, whereas the respondents would only lose the advantage of a possible strike out or deposit application based on the incomplete pleadings. The judge therefore permitted the amendment without expressing any view on the factual merits of the underlying constructive dismissal case.
The tribunal also made an expenses order in favour of the respondents for the costs of preparing for and attending the preliminary hearing, with the amount to be determined later. The respondents were given time to lodge further and better particulars of their response and to state whether they wished to pursue strike out and/or deposit, and whether they intended to lead evidence at any further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Preliminary-hearing judgment on amendment and expenses only. The claimant's constructive dismissal claim was not determined on the merits; the tribunal allowed further and better particulars and left any strike out/deposit application to a future hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836 EAT
- overriding objective
- Rule 75
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.