M Bogle v The Village Bakery (Wrexham} LIMITED JUDGEMENT — 2026

Employment Judge R Powell decided M Bogle's applications to amend her claim against The Village Bakery (Wrexham) Limited at a preliminary hearing on 27 January 2026. This judgment determined which amendments could proceed, rather than liability for the underlying complaints. The existing claims included sex-related harassment and direct sex discrimination arising from an allegation that Mr Wright told the claimant to “fuck off” on 11 November 2024.

The existing disability claim concerned a manager's tone of voice and physical proximity when telling the claimant to go home after her shift, on an uncertain date before 11 December 2024. The claimant confirmed that the disability section of her application restated that claim and sought no amendment. Her disability status remained unresolved; the judge assumed dyslexia only for this hearing and made adjustments to the hearing process. She also maintained her claim for unpaid Statutory Sick Pay between 11 December 2024 and 22 April 2025, which was not decided in this judgment.

The tribunal allowed the amendment adding race or ethnicity to the harassment allegation against Mr Wright. The claimant had originally relied on both race and sex but had chosen sex at the earlier preliminary hearing after being told that an assertion of dual protected characteristics was not permissible. The proposed amendment concerned the same incident and alleged perpetrator, and the respondent already had notice of the factual allegation. Applying Vaughan v Modality Partnership and the Selkent guidance, the judge found that the balance of injustice and hardship favoured allowing the amendment. The respondent's additional pleading costs were accepted, but the resulting prejudice was considered modest.

The tribunal refused permission to add further sex discrimination and sex-related harassment allegations. Despite discussion at the hearing, the claimant did not provide sufficiently clear names, dates or details of the alleged statements beyond the existing allegation against Mr Wright. The judge found that this uncertainty would hinder the respondent's ability to identify witnesses and prepare a coherent response, with the passage of time also affecting witnesses' memories. The balance of prejudice favoured refusing the amendment.

Permission to add victimisation allegations was also refused. The claimant relied on her grievance of 12 November 2024 as the protected act, but the alleged treatment by Mr Wright and Mr Grice preceded it. The judge considered that the proposed claim, taken at its highest, had no realistic prospect of success and that requiring the respondent to defend it would be unjust. Wider allegations of hostility and exclusion remained too uncertain for the respondent to understand and answer, despite the time spent seeking particulars and consideration of the claimant's pleaded dyslexia.