Dr L Abuhaloob v University of Dundee — 2025

The claimant's existing claim concerned alleged direct age and race discrimination after she was unsuccessful following an interview for a Research Fellow position in Dental Public Health. She later sought to amend the claim to add victimisation, relying on previous complaints or proceedings against the respondent.

The tribunal found that the proposed victimisation amendment was a new cause of action and that, as drafted, it did not give fair notice of what the respondent would have to defend. The tribunal treated timing as essentially neutral because the claimant had raised amendment in principle before the limitation period expired, but noted that the formal amendment before it was submitted on 2 February 2025.

Applying the Selkent principles and the overriding objective, the tribunal concluded that the prejudice to the claimant from refusing the amendment was relatively slight because the existing age and race discrimination claims could still proceed. It found that the prejudice to the respondent if the amendment were allowed would be severe, including further investigation, likely clarification orders, and possible disruption to the listed final hearing.