Ms Q Zahid v Lloyds Bank plc — 2024

The judgment concerned the claimant's application to amend her claim, not the final merits of the underlying complaints. The Tribunal allowed the unopposed amendments concerning disability-related harassment and victimisation, and considered the respondent's objection to an amendment alleging that the claimant had been constructively dismissed and that this amounted to disability-related harassment.

Applying the amendment discretion, the Tribunal found that the opposed amendment raised a new claim but did not add new factual allegations, because it relied on matters already advanced as discrimination complaints. Although the amendment was made outside the normal time limit, the Tribunal noted that time limit issues, including continuing act arguments and the just and equitable discretion, could not be determined without evidence and could be addressed later.

The Tribunal concluded that refusing the amendment would cause significant injustice and hardship to the claimant because she would have no remedy in respect of the termination of her employment. It found no significant identified prejudice to the respondent's ability to defend the new claim, allowed the amendment, directed the respondent to provide a revised ET3, and stated that the list of issues must not include matters not pleaded, including perceived disability and certain disability harassment issues not pleaded as such.