In person, assisted by Mr Brown and Mr Napier For the v Respondent — 2024

At a remote hearing on 2 May 2024, Employment Judge N J Roper considered the claimant’s application to amend the claim in case 6000111/2023. The existing pleaded case included unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal in relation to notice pay, detriment and automatically unfair dismissal said to arise from protected public interest disclosures, direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of philosophical belief, and a reasonable-adjustments complaint in respect of dyslexia and hearing loss.

The application had two parts. First, the claimant sought to add a further philosophical belief, described as medical privacy, distinct from the bodily autonomy belief already pleaded. Second, the claimant sought to substitute Rosie Verrico for Mr Stannard in one discrimination allegation said to concern the refusal to deal with whistleblowing complaints on the grounds of philosophical belief.

Applying Chapman v Simon, Cocking, Selkent, Vaughan v Modality Partnership, Foxtons v Ruwiel, Ladbrokes Racing v Traynor, and Chandhok v Tirkey, the tribunal held that the medical privacy amendment was a wholly new cause of action and had been brought substantially out of time. The proposed substitution of Ms Verrico was treated as linked to the same facts, but the tribunal found real and actual prejudice to the respondent because she was no longer employed and might not assist in answering the allegations.

The tribunal balanced the hardship on both sides and concluded that refusing the amendment would not cause substantial hardship to the claimant, whereas allowing either amendment would cause the respondent greater injustice, hardship and prejudice. The application to amend the originating application was therefore refused. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the underlying claims or any remedy.