ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal issued after Open Preliminary Hearing in Case No: 8001287/2025 Heard at Edinburgh on March 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Christina Johnston v The City of Edinburgh Council — 2026

This was an open preliminary hearing on the claimant's application for leave to amend her ET1 and on a jurisdictional challenge to apparent sexual harassment complaints. At the outset, the claimant confirmed that she did not seek to present complaints of harassment related to sex or sexual harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010. Those apparent complaints were dismissed of consent, so the tribunal did not need to determine title to present or jurisdiction for them.

The tribunal considered the proposed amendment dated 14 January 2026. It found that, apart from paragraphs 21 to 27 as excised, the amendment sought to introduce new heads of claim for direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal held that the original ET1 did not give notice of disability, disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, or failure to make adjustments, and that the proposed disability-related claims were not merely a relabelling exercise. It also found that, on the face of the ET1 and proposed amendment, the last alleged disability-related discriminatory or harassment act was on 20 May 2024, about a year before the ET1 was presented on 22 May 2025, and that the claimant's explanation about her use of the words bullying and harassment did not amount to justifiable ignorance for section 123(1)(b) purposes.

The tribunal refused leave to amend in the terms sought as a whole. It found that allowing the full amendment would substantially alter the pleaded case, introduce long passages of contention and submission, require a new case management process, require the respondent to answer substantially different complaints, require investigation of matters going back to 2021, and cause delay and increased cost. It considered that refusal would deprive the claimant of claims that, in their present form, had little reasonable prospect of success, could not properly be responded to, and could not support a fair hearing.

The tribunal granted leave only for the claimant to amend in terms of paragraphs 21 to 27 of the proposed amendment, with specified words deleted, because those paragraphs gave notice of a potential section 27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation claim closely linked to particulars in section 8.2 of the ET1. The tribunal recorded that the victimisation amendment still lacked specification and might raise time-bar issues, but held that those matters could be addressed by further particulars and later procedural steps. No final determination of liability or remedy was made.