Claimant v K.T.C (Edibles) Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA proceeding to full hearing. No challenge from respondent that this was included in ET1.
Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA (whistleblowing) was contained in original ET1 and respondent had responded to it. Tribunal allowed claimant to provide further particulars. This claim will proceed to full hearing.
Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100 ERA (health and safety) was a new claim not in original ET1 with its own legal test. Claimant failed to particularise sufficiently despite multiple attempts. Amendment refused as no prejudice to claimant given existing protected disclosure claim involving health and safety.
Detriment claims under s.47B ERA (protected disclosures) were in original ET1 with further particulars provided. Time limit issues to be determined at full hearing.
New claim not in ET1, based on new facts, significantly out of time (last alleged incident 5 July 2024). Despite orders, claimant failed to provide essential particulars. Amendment refused as unreasonable to allow claim to proceed given delay, lack of particulars, and prejudice to respondent.
New claim not in ET1, based on new facts, significantly out of time (alleged incidents 3 August 2023 and 27 October 2023). Claimant failed to provide particulars despite orders. Amendment refused due to time limits, lack of particulars, and prejudice to respondent.
ET1 contained claim for underpayment in wrap machine operator role. Amendment granted for claims limited to 2 years before claim date regarding correct rate of pay. Historical claims from 2004-2021 refused as new claims, significantly out of time, and placing burden on respondent.
New claim not in ET1, based on new facts, not discussed at case management hearing. No explanation for delay. Amendment refused due to prejudice to respondent.
New claim not in ET1, based on new facts, not discussed at case management hearing. No explanation for delay. Amendment refused due to prejudice to respondent.
Facts
Claimant worked for respondent food manufacturer from 2004 to dismissal in July 2024, allegedly under different identities until 2021. He was contracted as warehouse operative but claims he worked as wrap machine operator at higher rate. He raised concerns about food hygiene, health and safety, and rat infestation. Following his own disclosure about working under different identities, he was dismissed for breakdown of trust and confidence. He presented ET1 in September 2024 with limited particulars, then provided extensive further particulars after case management orders.
Decision
Tribunal allowed amendments to proceed with automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA, detriment under s.47B ERA, and limited unlawful deduction of wages claim (2 years back pay for correct role rate). Refused amendments for automatic unfair dismissal under s.100 ERA, race discrimination, harassment, breach of contract, and wrongful dismissal as new claims significantly out of time with inadequate particulars. Refused strike out and deposit order applications for remaining claims.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants must still provide essential case details in ET1; tribunals will give fair reading but cannot allow unlimited amendments that prejudice respondents, particularly for out-of-time claims lacking sufficient particulars despite multiple opportunities to provide them.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6012108/2024
- Decision date
- 26 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Warehouse Operative / Wrap Machine Operator
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No