Below, Ryan Ross reviews a recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Choudhury v Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Limited  EAT 172), in which HHJ Tayler issued further guidance on the correct approach to applications to amend claims in the Employment Tribunal.
The Claimant was employed by the respondent as a Security Officer from 24 March 2007. He was suspended on 12 April 2019. The Claimant was summarily dismissed on 24 September 2019 and he brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and victimisation. The claim form hinted at some other claim of discrimination. The Claimant was at all times unrepresented.
The Respondent denied the claims and complained that the victimisation claim lacked particularisation. The Tribunal wrote to the Claimant requiring him to provide further information on his victimisation claim. The Claimant duly responded with a lengthy document. The next day, he applied to amend his claim to bring complaints of direct discrimination and harassment.
The Decision of the Employment Tribunal.
At a preliminary hearing before EJ Lancaster sitting at Leeds Employment Tribunal, permission to amend the claim was refused. The Learned Judged held that: (i) complaints of discrimination and harassment could have been brought in the original claim; (ii) the Claimant was ‘no stranger’ to proceedings, having brought previous complaints in the Employment Tribunal; and (iii) the new allegations were being made for the first time at the preliminary hearing.
EJ Lancaster further added that he was applying the principles established in Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore  ICR 836; that the complaints were out of time; that the application was being made ‘by the back door’; and that it was ‘entirely unclear’ what the proposed amendment actually was.
The Decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The EAT (HHJ Tayler) overturned the Judge’s decision, holding that:
To read the judgment, please see here.
Ryan Ross has a practice with a particular focus on employment, regulatory, public and commercial/insurance-related areas of law. For further details on his practice, please see here.