E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000532/2024 (V)5 Held on February 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr S McGhie v RHT Scotland Limited — 2025

This was a preliminary hearing on 7 February 2025 before Employment Judge J M Hendry in which the claimant, Mr S McGhie, sought permission to amend his pleadings in a claim raised on 24 April 2024 for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation arising out of his employment as a fitter. The amendment sought to add an alleged incident of harassment on 29 or 30 November 2023 involving Mr A Russell.

The claimant explained that he had not included that incident in the ET1 because he had reported it to the police at the time, but by January 2024 he had learned that a witness, Brian Walter, would not participate in the police investigation and that the perpetrator had not cooperated, which affected his confidence about pursuing the point. He said he only recently became aware, from the respondent’s draft joint bundle, that Mr Lee had obtained a statement from Mr Walter confirming the abuse and that Mr Russell had accepted he had been abusive and had received a warning.

The respondent opposed the amendment on the basis that it was out of time and came too close to the hearing, leaving no proper time to consider its position or to interview Mr Russell, who had left the company. The tribunal noted that the respondent already knew about the incident and had taken steps to deal with it, including obtaining a statement, securing an admission, and issuing a warning. Applying the principles in Selkent Bus Company v Moore and the guidance in Choudhry v Cerberus Security & Monitoring Services Ltd, the tribunal considered the balance of hardship and found there was little prejudice to the respondent and greater prejudice to the claimant if the amendment were refused.

The amendment was therefore allowed, subject to time bar. The judge said the claimant’s reasons for the late amendment were not persuasive and cautioned that if the late lodging caused the respondent unnecessary expense, an application for expenses might follow. No merits decision or remedy award was made in this judgment.