Cases2403094/2024

Claimant v Cera Care Limited

29 April 2025Before Employment Judge LloydManchesterremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

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

Original claim for disability discrimination remains in the case. Claimant was permitted to amend to add further incidents relating to failure to make reasonable adjustments during the disciplinary procedure, including not allowing her to bring a friend and holding the hearing on the afternoon of the Christmas party.

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Original claim for unfair dismissal following disciplinary proceedings remains in the case and will proceed to full hearing.

Wrongful Dismissalnot determined

Original claim for wrongful dismissal remains in the case and will proceed to full hearing.

Holiday Paynot determined

Original claim for outstanding holiday pay remains in the case and will proceed to full hearing.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

Claimant permitted to amend to add specific allegations that respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments during disciplinary process, including not allowing her to bring a friend to the disciplinary hearing and holding the hearing on the afternoon of the Christmas party when she could not respond due to her disability.

Equal Pay(sex)struck out

Application to amend to add equal pay claim refused. Claim was out of time, not raised in original ET1 despite claimant being aware of time limits, and would cause prejudice to respondent as witness who dealt with pay complaint had left employment. Claimant gave no good reason for delay in raising claim.

Direct Discrimination(sex)struck out

Application to amend to add sex discrimination claim refused. This was an entirely new cause of action not raised until December 2024 preliminary hearing, considerably outside statutory time limits. Claimant's original complaint about pay in May 2023 made no mention of gender differential. Tribunal found hardship to respondent in allowing amendment exceeded hardship to claimant in refusing it.

Victimisation(sex)struck out

Application to amend to add victimisation claim (alleged victimisation after complaining about pay leading to dismissal) refused. New cause of action raised too late, outside time limits, with no good reason for delay. Respondent would be prejudiced as employee who received pay complaint had left employment.

Facts

The claimant, a care coordinator earning £22,575 per annum, was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings in December 2023. She had complained in May 2023 that she was paid less than new starters doing the same role (£24,000). She filed her ET1 in May 2024 claiming disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and holiday pay. In December 2024, after obtaining legal advice, she sought to add equal pay, sex discrimination and victimisation claims, arguing she was paid less than a male comparator and dismissed after complaining. She also sought to add further disability discrimination allegations about the disciplinary process.

Decision

The tribunal refused the application to amend to add equal pay, sex discrimination and victimisation claims on the grounds they were entirely new causes of action brought considerably outside the statutory time limits with no good reason for the delay. The respondent would be prejudiced as the witness who dealt with the pay complaint had left employment. However, the tribunal permitted amendments to add further disability discrimination allegations about reasonable adjustments during the disciplinary process, as the respondent conceded little prejudice.

Practical note

Applications to add new causes of action significantly outside time limits will be refused where there is no good reason for delay and the respondent would suffer prejudice, particularly where key witnesses have left employment, even if the claimant was initially unrepresented.

Legal authorities cited

Martin v Microgeneration Wealth Management Systems Ltd UKEAT/05/006Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Trainer UKEATS/0067/06Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836Vaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] ICR 535Galilee v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] ICR 634Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council UKEAT/0140/06Gillett v Bridge 86 Limited EAT 0051/17

Statutes

Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013Employment Tribunal Rules 2013

Case details

Case number
2403094/2024
Decision date
29 April 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Coordinator
Salary band
£20,000–£25,000

Claimant representation

Represented
No