Cases6010137/2024

Claimant v Lloyds Bank Plc

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

Original claim brought on 30 August 2024. This reconsideration judgment relates only to a procedural matter regarding amendment of the claim, not the substantive merits.

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

Original claim brought on 30 August 2024. This reconsideration judgment relates only to a procedural matter regarding amendment of the claim, not the substantive merits.

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

Amendment application allowed at preliminary hearing on 5 June 2025 concerning allegation that Ms Cody selected Alexie Kalenga to attend a leadership course in March 2023, excluding the Claimant. Reconsideration of amendment decision refused as out of time.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

Amendment application allowed at preliminary hearing on 5 June 2025 concerning allegation that on 6 December 2023 the Claimant was given an 'Always Late' Award. Reconsideration of amendment decision refused as out of time.

Harassment(disability)not determined

Amendment application allowed at preliminary hearing on 5 June 2025 concerning allegation that on 6 December 2023 the Claimant was given an 'Always Late' Award. Reconsideration of amendment decision refused as out of time.

Facts

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent bank on a fixed-term contract from 15 February 2023 to 31 March 2024. She brought claims of race and disability discrimination filed on 30 August 2024. At a preliminary hearing on 5 June 2025, the tribunal allowed her application to amend her claim to add two new allegations: race discrimination regarding non-selection for a leadership course in March 2023, and disability-related discrimination/harassment concerning an 'Always Late' award given on 6 December 2023. The respondent applied for reconsideration on 30 June 2025, three days out of time, arguing prejudice from needing additional witnesses and disputing the facts.

Decision

The tribunal refused the respondent's reconsideration application because it was submitted three days out of time (deadline 27 June, submitted 30 June). Even considering the merits, the judge found no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the amendment decision: the need for one additional witness would not have changed the balance of prejudice, and the respondent's denial of facts was not relevant to the amendment decision as factual disputes cannot be resolved without hearing evidence.

Practical note

Reconsideration applications must be submitted within 14 days and will not succeed where they merely seek to re-argue matters already determined, particularly regarding amendment decisions where the balance of prejudice was properly considered.

Legal authorities cited

T.W. White & Sons Ltd v White, UKEAT/0022/21Outasight VB Ltd v Brown UKEAT/0253/14Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] IRLR 277Ministry of Justice v Burton [2016] EWCA Civ 714Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 384Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0002/16/DA

Case details

Case number
6010137/2024
Decision date
8 September 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Service
1 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No