Claimant v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was originally brought as a race discrimination claim and remains live. This preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend, which was refused. The substantive race discrimination claim will proceed to the final hearing listed for April 2026.
The claim was originally brought as a disability discrimination claim and remains live. This preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend, which was refused. The substantive disability discrimination claim will proceed to the final hearing listed for April 2026.
The claimant sought to amend her claim to add constructive unfair dismissal over 16 months after filing her ET1. The tribunal refused the amendment on the basis it was a substantive new claim, out of time, with insufficient explanation for the delay, and would cause unfair prejudice to the respondent and delay the final hearing.
The claimant sought to amend to add a victimisation claim alleging suspension and fraud investigation were reprisals for raising a protected act. The tribunal refused this amendment as it was a substantive new claim made too late, lacking particularisation, and would unfairly prejudice the respondent.
The claimant had discussed whistleblowing with Protect before filing her ET1 but chose not to include it. Her attempt to add this claim 16 months later was refused as it was out of time, not just and equitable to extend time, and would cause significant additional work and delay to proceedings.
Facts
The claimant filed an ET1 on 15 April 2024 claiming race and disability discrimination. Although she had discussed whistleblowing with Protect before filing, she did not include such a claim. Following a preliminary hearing in December 2024 where the tribunal ordered clarification of claims, the claimant applied on 28 August 2025 to amend her claim to add constructive unfair dismissal, victimisation and whistleblowing. The claimant argued she was a litigant in person who had failed to fully set out her claims initially. A final hearing was listed for April 2026.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application to amend. The judge found the proposed amendments were substantive new claims, not mere relabelling. They were out of time with no just and equitable basis to extend time, particularly given the claimant had received advice before filing and had been given opportunities to clarify her claims over 12 months earlier. Allowing the amendments would unfairly prejudice the respondent, require substantial additional work, and delay the final hearing.
Practical note
Litigant in person status does not excuse failure to properly plead claims, and late applications to add substantive new heads of claim will be refused where there is insufficient explanation for the delay and allowing the amendment would cause unfair prejudice to the respondent.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 3303977/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep