Mr D Gibson v Represented by:10 Mr G Woolfson - Solicitor Fares Free and 3 others — 2024

The claimant applied on 7 November 2024 to amend his ET1, and the application was heard on 28 November 2024. The tribunal applied the Selkent approach to amendments, with the overriding objective in mind, and balanced the prejudice to each side. It allowed paragraph 1 of the draft amendment, which added further instances of mail being received at the claimant's home address after August 2024, as a tidying-up exercise rather than a fresh allegation of wrongdoing.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 were refused. The tribunal treated them as an entirely new victimisation claim and held that the pleading was too vague because it did not set out clearly what Leon Fisher was said to have said, to whom, when, or in what circumstances. It considered that the respondent would be prejudiced because it could not properly answer the allegation without further and better particulars, whereas the claimant could, if necessary, bring a fresh claim and refine the pleading.

Paragraph 4 was also refused. The tribunal held that the new facts allowed by paragraph 1 did not show any discriminatory act within the prescriptive period and therefore could not support an allegation of a continuing course of discrimination. Paragraph 5, which concerned employer liability under sections 109 to 112 of the Equality Act 2010, was refused as unnecessary because the claimant still needed to plead clearly why the three non-employer individuals were said to be liable. The judgment was limited to the amendment application and did not determine the underlying merits.