Cases3307468/2023

Claimant v Amazon UK Services Limited

11 July 2025Before Employment Judge AlliottWatfordin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

This is a preliminary hearing on an application to amend. The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was already formulated at previous CMPHs and remains live. Permission was granted to add 15 additional suggested reasonable adjustments to the list of issues. Full merits hearing listed for June 2026.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

The claimant's application to add a section 15 disability discrimination claim (unfavourable treatment arising from disability) containing 56 instances was refused. The tribunal found these complaints essentially covered by the existing reasonable adjustments claim, and adding them would add significant unnecessary complexity. The claimant had previously confirmed at a CMPH on 7 March 2024 she was not making such a claim.

Facts

The claimant, a Polish-speaking employee of Amazon, brought a disability discrimination claim in June 2023 focused on failure to make reasonable adjustments for her long-term disability. After three preliminary hearings before three different Employment Judges, a list of issues was agreed limiting the claim to reasonable adjustments only. The claimant made multiple applications to amend, seeking to add section 15 discrimination claims with 56 instances, extend the claim back to 2017, and add breach of health and safety policy allegations. This was the claimant's third application to amend, made in March 2025.

Decision

Employment Judge Alliott granted permission to add 15 additional suggested reasonable adjustments to the existing list of issues. However, the judge refused the rest of the application, including the section 15 disability discrimination claim with 56 instances, the extension back to 2017, and breach of policy allegations. The judge found that adding these claims would add significant unnecessary complexity and that the issues had already been decided or excluded by previous judges. The balance of hardship favoured refusing the amendments.

Practical note

Tribunals will refuse repeated applications to amend that seek to re-argue issues already decided at previous preliminary hearings, particularly where the proposed amendments would add significant complexity to claims that are already adequately covered by existing pleadings.

Legal authorities cited

Selkent Bus Co Ltd v MooreVaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] ICR 535

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21Equality Act 2010 section 27Equality Act 2010 section 15Equality Act 2010 section 13Equality Act 2010 section 26

Case details

Case number
3307468/2023
Decision date
11 July 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No