Cases6016444/2024

Claimant v Davies Group Limited

22 December 2025Before Employment Judge NoonsMidlands Westremote telephone

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Victimisationnot determined

This was a preliminary hearing on an application to amend the claim to add allegations of victimisation relating to events on 8 and 14 May 2025. The tribunal refused the amendment application as the proposed claims had very little prospect of success, the alleged acts were unlikely to constitute detriments, and allowing the amendment would cause greater hardship to the respondent than refusing it would cause to the claimant.

Facts

The claimant applied to amend her existing discrimination claim to add allegations of victimisation relating to two incidents in May 2025. On 8 May 2025, she left work due to stress to finalise her tribunal bundle and was told she could take some leave as sick leave. On 14 May 2025, she was referred to occupational health after reporting stress. She also alleged the respondent should have used their flexible working policy rather than treating her absence as sick leave.

Decision

Employment Judge Noons refused the amendment application. The judge found that the proposed new claims had very little prospect of success as the alleged acts were unlikely to constitute detriments under the Equality Act 2010. The balance of injustice and hardship favoured the respondent, who would face significant additional costs and complexity in defending claims unlikely to succeed, while the claimant's existing discrimination claims were still proceeding to final hearing.

Practical note

Applications to amend claims to add post-claim victimisation allegations will be refused where the proposed acts are supportive rather than detrimental, even if made within time limits, when the balance of hardship favours the respondent and the claims have little prospect of success.

Legal authorities cited

Vaughan v Modality Partnership 2021 ICR 535Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore 1996 ICR 836Chaudhry v Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd 2022 EAT 172

Statutes

Equality Act 2010

Case details

Case number
6016444/2024
Decision date
22 December 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No