Claimant v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a preliminary hearing on an application to amend only; the underlying unfair dismissal claim remains to be determined at a future multi-day hearing.
This claim regarding notice pay remains listed for determination at the main hearing; no substantive decision made at this preliminary stage.
Claimant alleges automatically unfair dismissal arising from protected disclosures; claim not yet determined on its merits.
Claimant alleges detriment from making protected public interest disclosures; this remains part of the agreed list of issues for the main hearing.
Claimant alleges direct discrimination because of philosophical belief in bodily autonomy relating to Covid vaccination refusal; claim remains to be heard.
Claimant alleges harassment related to philosophical belief concerning bodily autonomy; this remains in the agreed list of issues for determination.
Claimant alleges failure to make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities of dyslexia and hearing loss; to be determined at main hearing.
Facts
The claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, and discrimination based on philosophical belief in bodily autonomy regarding Covid vaccination. At a preliminary hearing held remotely in May 2024, she applied to amend her claim to add a separate philosophical belief (medical privacy) and to substitute a different individual (Ms Verrico, a former employee) as the alleged discriminator in one allegation. The respondent opposed the application on grounds of prejudice, particularly as Ms Verrico was no longer employed and it was unclear whether she would voluntarily cooperate.
Decision
Employment Judge Roper refused the claimant's application to amend. The Judge found that adding a new philosophical belief constituted a wholly new cause of action made substantially out of time, while substituting Ms Verrico would expand the inquiry and cause actual prejudice to the respondent given her departure and uncertain cooperation. Applying the Cocking/Selkent balancing test, the Judge concluded that allowing the amendments would cause greater injustice and hardship to the respondent than refusing them would cause the claimant.
Practical note
Late applications to amend that introduce new causes of action or substitute key individuals who are no longer available as witnesses will be refused where they cause actual (not merely perceived) prejudice to the opposing party, particularly where substantial claims already remain to be determined.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6000111/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No