Cases2405006/2022

Claimant v Secretary of State for the Home Office

28 May 2025Before Employment Judge BensonLiverpoolremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

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

The preliminary hearing dealt only with amendment applications and case management. The disability discrimination claim remains listed for final hearing in May 2025. Disability status issue was deferred to the final hearing.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Claimant's application to amend to add race discrimination claims relating to February 2021 and December 2021 was refused. Tribunal found it was a substantive new cause of action, significantly out of time, with no good explanation for the 2+ year delay. Allowing the amendment would cause hardship to the respondent and risk delaying the May 2025 final hearing on existing disability claims.

Facts

Claimant, an Indian national, applied for Project Support Officer role with Home Office in January 2021. He was interviewed in February 2021 and initially offered the position, being acknowledged as the strongest candidate. However, the offer was withdrawn because his immigration status required sponsorship and the Home Office did not have a sponsorship licence. In December 2021 when a similar vacancy arose, he was not offered the position. He brought disability discrimination claims in June 2022. Over two years later, in July 2024, he sought to amend to add race discrimination claims relating to the 2021 recruitment process. The case has been significantly delayed by the claimant's ill health and multiple postponements.

Decision

The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add race discrimination complaints. Judge Benson found this was a substantive new cause of action, significantly out of time (over a year), with no good explanation for the delay. The claimant had the relevant information from April 2022. Allowing the amendment would cause hardship to the respondent requiring significant additional preparation work and would likely necessitate postponing the May 2025 final hearing on the existing disability claims, now over three years after the events. The balance of hardship favoured refusing the amendment.

Practical note

Applications to amend to add substantially new causes of action significantly out of time will be refused where there is no good explanation for delay and allowing the amendment would cause hardship to the respondent and risk further postponement of long-delayed proceedings.

Legal authorities cited

Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836Vaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] ICR 535

Case details

Case number
2405006/2022
Decision date
28 May 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
central government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Project Support Officer 3 in IT Moves & Changes

Claimant representation

Represented
No