Mr Clinton Melbourne- Hurley v Lanes-I Limited — 2026

At a preliminary hearing on 18 June 2026, First Tier Tribunal Judge Davison considered the claimant's application to amend, the respondent's application to strike out or obtain deposit orders, and the claimant's application for anonymity. The tribunal did not determine the merits of all the claimant's discrimination and whistleblowing claims, and directed that the list of issues be revised for the claims continuing toward a final hearing.

Applying the Selkent amendment principles and the balance of injustice and hardship, the tribunal allowed the claimant to add victimisation complaints where this amounted to relabelling facts already pleaded as whistleblowing detriments. It refused the remainder of the amendment application. The proposed additions included seven new allegations of direct race discrimination and/or harassment involving different individuals and areas of enquiry. The tribunal found no valid explanation for their omission from the detailed ET1, found that allowing them would significantly prejudice the respondent, and found no significant prejudice to the claimant because extensive existing allegations remained and the additional matters could be presented as background or context.

The tribunal struck out specified race discrimination allegations. Its reasons included that one complaint concerning December 2023 had no reasonable prospect of being shown to form part of conduct extending over a period under section 123 of the Equality Act; that another allegation could not establish vicarious liability or race-related less favourable treatment on the pleaded case; and that several allegations disclosed no pleaded facts from which race-related treatment could be inferred. Other allegations lacked dates, identified individuals, an alleged difference in protected characteristic and treatment, or facts capable of establishing the respondent's liability.

Specified harassment allegations were also struck out. The tribunal found that alleged comments in one complaint could not reasonably have the effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, even if proved. Another allegation was inadequately particularised because it did not identify who made the comments, who gave alleged warnings, or who created the alleged hostile environment.

The tribunal struck out two pleaded detriment allegations. It found that the Human Resources team's request for clarification or elaboration did not amount to a detriment. It also found that an allegation that the respondent had not replied to an email was factually inaccurate, as the claimant accepted at the hearing; permission was not given to amend it at that stage into a complaint that the response had been partial or incomplete. No compensation or other monetary remedy was determined.

The anonymity application was refused. The tribunal found no sensitive or personal information giving the claimant a reasonable expectation of privacy and no clear and cogent evidence that publication of his identity would affect his mental health or safety or expose him to reprisals. It found that his Article 8 rights were not engaged and, alternatively, that the open-justice balance fell against a privacy order.