Case 6006764/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Taylor v Capital Service Group Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2026
- Case reference
- 6006764/2025
- Decision date
- 17 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Appearances For
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied to amend his claim to include constructive unfair dismissal. The original ET1 was received on 27 February 2025 and centred on unpaid wages and expenses; the amendment application was made on 13 March 2025 before the respondent's response was received.
The tribunal considered the guidance on amendment applications, including Selkent, Vaughan, CX, Trimble, Presidential Guidance, and Conteh. It found no real hardship or prejudice to the respondent if the amendment were granted, and allowed the application. The judgment did not determine the merits of the constructive dismissal claim or make any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The preliminary hearing allowed the claimant's application to amend the claim to include constructive unfair dismissal. The merits of the claim were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Selkent factors
- balance of injustice and hardship
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- CX v Secretary of State for Justice
- Trimble and anor v North Lanarkshire Council and anor
- Conteh v First Security Guards Ltd
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.