Claimant v J C Frost (Holdings) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This is the only claim proceeding to the full merits hearing scheduled for November 2025. The preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend the claim, not the substantive merits of the constructive dismissal claim.
Claimant sought to add this claim by amendment on 15 May 2025, well after the deadline. The tribunal refused the amendment finding that the balance of injustice and hardship favoured the respondent given the late timing, lack of detail, and substantive nature of the new claim requiring vacation of the hearing date.
Claimant sought to add this harassment claim under section 26 EA 2010 by amendment on 15 May 2025. The tribunal refused the amendment on the same grounds as the reasonable adjustments claim, finding insufficient detail and that it was a substantive new claim advanced too late.
Facts
The claimant, who was initially a litigant in person, filed a claim for constructive unfair dismissal in September 2024. After obtaining legal representation, she applied in May 2025 to amend her claim to add disability discrimination claims (failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment), citing lack of legal understanding and insufficient funds for representation. The tribunal had previously given the claimant until 25 November 2024 to clarify if she was bringing additional claims beyond unfair dismissal, but no response was received. A full merits hearing was scheduled for November 2025 via CVP.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were substantive new claims that would require vacation of the November hearing, additional evidence on disability, and would be significantly out of time. Applying the balance of hardship test from Selkent and Vaughan, the judge concluded that allowing the late amendments would unfairly tip the balance against the respondent. The tribunal also refused the respondent's application to convert the November hearing from CVP to in-person, citing the claimant's health issues and finding no compelling factors to justify the change.
Practical note
Late applications to add substantive new discrimination claims will be refused where the claimant had previous opportunities to clarify claims, cannot adequately explain the delay, and allowing the amendment would cause significant prejudice to the respondent by requiring vacation of a hearing date.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010762/2024
- Decision date
- 1 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister