Mr Kin Fok v Kier Group plc — 2026

At the open preliminary hearing on 8 April 2026, Employment Judge M Da Costa refused Mr Fok's application to amend his existing race discrimination case by adding constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. This judgment concerned only the amendment application and did not determine the substantive merits of either the proposed claims or the existing race discrimination claim.

The Tribunal found that Mr Fok's ET1, as amplified at the preliminary hearing on 12 January 2026, was wholly premised on race discrimination. Although it referred to prolonged driving, lack of support and effects on his health, it did not plead disability or failure to make reasonable adjustments. The proposed amendments were therefore substantial new complaints rather than re-labelling of the existing claim and would require substantial new areas of factual and legal inquiry.

The proposed claims were substantially outside their primary time limits. The Tribunal found that the facts supporting the proposed disability claims were known to Mr Fok when he presented his ET1 and that, by his resignation on 31 March 2025, he knew the facts underlying all the proposed amendments. It found no impediment preventing him from bringing them by the limitation date of 12 September 2025 and concluded that he had not established a prima facie case that the applicable time-limit requirements could be satisfied.

The Tribunal did not accept that the delay resulted from the respondent's response to the original claim. It found that Mr Fok had initially regarded his case as one of race discrimination and had not intended to plead the additional claims. There was no medical evidence supporting his submission that anxiety prevented him from researching his rights or applicable time limits, and the Tribunal did not find an understandable misconception of the law.

All three Selkent factors weighed against allowing the amendments. Applying the Vaughan balance of prejudice, the Tribunal found that admitting the new claims would require further inquiries, evidence and potentially further hearings, with additional cost and likely disruption to the listed final hearing. It considered the countervailing prejudice to Mr Fok to be less and refused the amendments. No monetary remedy was awarded or determined.