Claimant v Clyde & Co Claims LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to include a physical disability under s6 Equality Act. The amendment application was made on 30 May 2025 and considered on 10 November 2025, but refused due to the nature and timing of the amendment, time limit issues, and the balance of hardship favouring the respondent.
The claimant sought to amend to include a claim of unfavourable treatment pursuant to s15 Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability). The tribunal refused this amendment considering the timing, nature, time limits and balance of injustice between parties.
The claimant's application to amend to include failure to make reasonable adjustments under s20-21 Equality Act 2010 was refused by the tribunal after weighing the balance of injustice and hardship between the parties, with the balance favouring the respondent.
The claimant sought to amend to include a victimisation claim under s27 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal refused this amendment on the basis of the nature and timing of the amendment, time limit considerations, and finding that the balance of injustice and hardship weighed in favour of the respondent.
Facts
Lady O Akanbi, a self-represented claimant, brought an employment claim against Clyde & Co Claims LLP, a legal services partnership. On 30 May 2025, the claimant applied to amend her original claim to include various disability discrimination claims including physical disability status, unfavourable treatment under s15, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation. The respondent opposed the amendment and also applied to strike out the claim or issue a deposit order on the basis it had no or little reasonable prospect of success.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's amendment application on 10 November 2025, finding that when weighing the nature and timing of the amendment, time limit issues, and the balance of injustice and hardship between the parties, the balance favoured the respondent. The tribunal also refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim or issue a deposit order.
Practical note
Amendment applications to add disability discrimination claims will be refused if the tribunal finds the balance of injustice and hardship favours the respondent, even if strike-out or deposit order applications against the existing claims fail.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2404861/2024
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No