Cases→3306081/2024

Claimant v Operose Health

6 June 2025Before Tribunal Judge G D DavisonReadingremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

This is a preliminary hearing on an application to amend. The race discrimination claim remains live and will proceed to a full merits hearing listed for August 2025.

Wrongful Dismissalnot determined

This is a preliminary hearing on an application to amend. The constructive wrongful dismissal claim remains live and will proceed to a full merits hearing listed for August 2025.

Whistleblowingstruck out

Application to amend to add protected disclosure detriment claim was refused. The amendment was not minor, was out of time with no justification for extension, was made late purely in response to the ET3, and the claimant mirrored the respondent's anticipated claim rather than advancing an independent basis. The tribunal balanced hardship and injustice and refused the amendment.

Facts

The claimant resigned in April 2024 and filed claims for race discrimination and constructive wrongful dismissal in June 2024. She was legally represented throughout. After the respondent filed its ET3 response, the claimant sought to amend her claim to add a protected disclosure detriment claim based on alleged disclosures made by November 2023. The respondent had anticipated this amendment and the claimant's proposed amendment mirrored the respondent's anticipated claim.

Decision

The tribunal refused the application to amend. The amendment was substantive not minor, was out of time with no justification advanced for extension, and was made late solely in response to the ET3. The tribunal found the claimant had not advanced an independent basis for the claim but had mirrored the respondent's anticipated amendment. Applying Selkent factors and balancing hardship and injustice, the amendment was refused.

Practical note

Applications to amend out-of-time claims require proper justification for late filing, and tribunals will scrutinize amendments made reactively in response to an ET3 rather than being independently formulated, particularly where the claimant has been legally represented throughout.

Legal authorities cited

Vaughan v Modality Partnership 2021 ICR 535Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore EAT 2 May 1996Trimble and anor v North Lanarkshire Council and anor EATS 0048/12Conteh v First Security Guards Ltd EAT 0144/16

Statutes

ERA 1996

Case details

Case number
3306081/2024
Decision date
6 June 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Operose Health
Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →