Cases8000870/2024

Claimant v Sky Subscribers Services Limited

31 March 2025Before Employment Judge P O'DonnellScotlandremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Claim proceeding to final hearing. No time bar issue raised in respect of unfair dismissal claim as ET1 lodged timeously following dismissal on 5 February 2024.

Whistleblowingnot determined

Public interest disclosure detriment claims under Employment Rights Act 1996 proceeding to final hearing scheduled for 24 February 2025.

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

Various discrimination claims under Equality Act 2010 proceeding to final hearing. Respondent raised time bar defence for acts in 2022 and 2023. Tribunal will determine at final hearing whether individual acts form continuing act and whether to exercise discretion to hear claims out of time.

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

Amendment allowed to add claim that dismissal was direct disability discrimination under ss13 and 39(2)(c) Equality Act. Claimant alleges person who harassed him due to disability was person who dismissed him. Time bar and liability issues to be determined at final hearing.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

Claims arising from disability and how claimant had to work proceeding to final hearing. Amendment application allowed to add discrimination arising from disability claim relating to dismissal.

Victimisationnot determined

Amendment allowed to add victimisation claim under ss27 and 39(2)(c) Equality Act relating to dismissal. Claimant relies on protected acts set out in further particulars dated 25 October 2024. To be determined at final hearing.

Facts

Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination following his dismissal on 5 February 2024. Respondent raised time bar defence to discrimination claims as further particulars referred to acts in 2022 and 2023. At preliminary hearing to address time bar, claimant sought to amend to add claims that his dismissal itself was discrimination (direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and victimisation). Claimant is self-represented; respondent represented by paralegal.

Decision

Tribunal allowed claimant's amendment application to add discrimination claims relating to his dismissal. Tribunal found amendment did not raise new facts but applied additional labels to existing factual matrix. Although amendment was late and out of time, prejudice to respondent was limited as they could still defend and evidence would overlap with existing unfair dismissal claim. Time bar issues (including continuing act and discretion to extend time) to be determined at final hearing.

Practical note

Tribunals will allow late amendments by unrepresented claimants to add discrimination claims to an existing dismissal where the factual matrix is unchanged, particularly where time bar defences can still be determined at final hearing.

Legal authorities cited

Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] ICR 530Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd UKEAT/0092/07Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] ICR 634Douglas v North Lanarkshire Council [2024] EAT 194

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s123(1)(b)Equality Act 2010 s39(2)(c)Equality Act 2010 s123(3)ET Rules of Procedure Rule 30Employment Rights Act 1996Equality Act 2010 s13Equality Act 2010 s15Equality Act 2010 s27

Case details

Case number
8000870/2024
Decision date
31 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
media
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Claimant representation

Represented
No