Claimant v SDL Surveying Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This claim remains in the case and will proceed to full hearing in November 2026. The preliminary hearing only addressed an amendment application and did not determine the merits of the existing claims.
This claim is based on allegations of protected disclosures regarding breaches of RICS rules and working outside geographical competence. It remains undetermined and will proceed to full hearing.
This whistleblowing detriment claim relates to alleged protected disclosures about RICS compliance. It remains undetermined and will proceed to full hearing.
This disability discrimination claim remains in the case and will proceed to full hearing. The preliminary hearing did not address its merits.
This claim concerns whether the claimant's sickness absence (arising from lymphoma) put him at particular disadvantage in the redundancy selection process. It remains undetermined and will proceed to full hearing.
The original s.15 claim was based on sickness absence arising from disability affecting redundancy scoring. This claim remains in the case and will proceed to full hearing. The claimant's application to amend to add a separate s.15 claim based on report turnaround times was refused.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a surveyor from March 2013 to January 2024 when dismissed for redundancy. He has lymphoma and brought claims including unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, and disability discrimination. The original disability discrimination claims focused on sickness absence affecting redundancy selection. The claimant applied to amend to add a new s.15 claim alleging that his report turnaround times (affected by fatigue, memory loss, insomnia and anxiety from his disability) led to lower redundancy scores, relying on communications with the employer dating back to 2017 about performance impacts.
Decision
The tribunal refused the amendment application. Judge Moore determined this was a new claim rather than further particulars, requiring substantial new factual inquiries going back to 2017. Despite the hearing being distant (November 2026), the amendment was very much out of time (claim filed April 2024, amendment sought January 2025) with no explanation for delay. The balance of prejudice favoured refusal, given the respondent would face evidence about matters up to nine years old, while the claimant already had seven extensive heads of claim.
Practical note
Late amendment applications to add new disability discrimination claims based on different factual allegations will be refused where legally represented claimants provide no explanation for delay and the amendments would significantly widen the factual scope requiring evidence of events many years old.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304494/2024
- Decision date
- 27 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Surveyor
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister