Claimant v University of Dundee
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a preliminary hearing on an amendment application. The substantive claim of race discrimination relating to the claimant's unsuccessful interview for a Research Fellow position remains live and will proceed to a full merits hearing in May 2025.
This is a preliminary hearing on an amendment application. The substantive claim of age discrimination relating to the claimant's unsuccessful interview remains live and will proceed to a full merits hearing in May 2025.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend to add a victimisation claim. The proposed amendment was confused, did not give fair notice to the respondent of what required defending, and the claimant provided no explanation for why this was not included in the original ET1. The balance of prejudice favoured refusing the amendment.
Facts
Dr Abuhaloob, a Palestinian candidate, applied for a Research Fellow position in Dental Public Health at the University of Dundee School of Dentistry. She attended an interview on 23 August 2024 and was unsuccessful. She claimed direct discrimination on grounds of race and age. She had previously brought a tribunal claim against the same employer in 2021 relating to failure to provide a reference, which was withdrawn. On 2 February 2025, she applied to amend her claim to add victimisation, alleging less favourable treatment due to her previous complaints.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend to add a victimisation claim. The proposed amendment was confused, muddied the waters by referring to time-barred 2020 events, and did not give the respondent fair notice of the case to meet. The claimant provided no explanation for not including victimisation in her original ET1. Applying Selkent principles and the balance of prejudice test, the tribunal found the prejudice to the respondent would be severe if the amendment were allowed, whereas the claimant's existing race and age discrimination claims will proceed to a full hearing.
Practical note
Late amendments adding new causes of action will be refused where they lack clarity, fail to give fair notice, and the claimant cannot explain why the claim was not raised initially, particularly where allowing the amendment would cause significant prejudice to the respondent.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 8001774/2024
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Employment details
- Role
- Research Fellow position in Dental Public Health (applied for, not employed)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No