Loading…

’s representative accepted that the proposed amendment re sex discrimination is ‘more of a relabelling than a new claim’. It was argued that the proposed amendment re the section claim is not a re-labelling. It was confirmed that objection was made to both proposed amendments. They invited consideration of the following 4110004/2021 Page factors in considering whether or not the amendment should be allowed: time bar; time limits; whether it was the addition of new facts and the timing and manner of the application. 43. The — employment tribunal cases | Tribunal Watch

Tribunal WatchEmployers’s representative accepted that the proposed amendment re sex discrimination is ‘more of a relabelling than a new claim’. It was argued that the proposed amendment re the section claim is not a re-labelling. It was confirmed that objection was made to both proposed amendments. They invited consideration of the following 4110004/2021 Page factors in considering whether or not the amendment should be allowed: time bar; time limits; whether it was the addition of new facts and the timing and manner of the application. 43. The

Employer file

’s representative accepted that the proposed amendment re sex discrimination is ‘more of a relabelling than a new claim’. It was argued that the proposed amendment re the section claim is not a re-labelling. It was confirmed that objection was made to both proposed amendments. They invited consideration of the following 4110004/2021 Page factors in considering whether or not the amendment should be allowed: time bar; time limits; whether it was the addition of new facts and the timing and manner of the application. 43. The

Since 2017, ’s representative accepted that the proposed amendment re sex discrimination is ‘more of a relabelling than a new claim’. It was argued that the proposed amendment re the section claim is not a re-labelling. It was confirmed that objection was made to both proposed amendments. They invited consideration of the following 4110004/2021 Page factors in considering whether or not the amendment should be allowed: time bar; time limits; whether it was the addition of new facts and the timing and manner of the application. 43. The has appeared as a respondent in 1 employment tribunal case, with £0 in total awards recorded against the employer.

Indexed: 2 August 2026

Total cases: 1
Total awarded against: £0
Largest award: —
Most common claim: Disability discrimination

Cases by claim type

1 distinct category

#	Claim type	Cases	Relative share
01	Disability discrimination	1

All cases

1 case · page 1 of 1 · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Jurisdiction	Claimant	Claim types	Award
4110004/2021	14 June 2022	Scotland	Mrs Natalie Ann Wright	Disability discrimination	—

Methodology

Data extracted from published employment tribunal judgments on gov.uk. Case reference, decision date, judge, venue and claim categories come from structured metadata. Claimant and respondent names are extracted from the judgment PDF text, and a second LLM-assisted pass adds per-claim outcomes, key findings, and any compensation awarded. Many UK tribunal decisions are liability-only — the remedy is set at a later hearing — so a case can correctly show an outcome with no award figure. See how the data is built.