Case 6003335/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Trocan v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003335/2024
- Decision date
- 21 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Trocan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant had originally brought claims of direct disability discrimination, direct race discrimination and direct sex discrimination. She later applied to amend her claim, and by the time of the amendment hearing the only amendment pursued was to add a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. The Respondent opposed the application.
The tribunal considered the Claimant's status as a litigant in person, but found that the proposed amendment was an entirely new claim rather than a re-labelling of the existing claims. The tribunal noted that the Claimant had given no reason for the delay, with the result that the new claim was out of time.
The tribunal also found a fundamental flaw in the proposed reasonable adjustments claim because the Claimant had not identified a correct provision, criterion or practice. The tribunal concluded that refusing the amendment would not cause undue hardship to the Claimant, who could still pursue her other claims, while the balance of hardship fell heavily on the Respondent. The application to amend was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's application to amend her claim to add a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. This judgment did not determine the existing direct disability, race and sex discrimination claims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- Choudhury v Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Limited (2002) EAT 172
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.