Claimant v Buckinghamshire Council
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend to add a victimisation complaint. The substantive race discrimination claim remains to be heard at the final hearing listed for 18-26 May 2026.
This preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend. The substantive sex discrimination claim remains to be heard at the final hearing listed for 18-26 May 2026.
This preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend. The substantive age discrimination claim remains to be heard at the final hearing listed for 18-26 May 2026.
This preliminary hearing dealt only with an application to amend. The substantive religion or belief discrimination claim remains to be heard at the final hearing listed for 18-26 May 2026.
The claimant's application to amend to add a victimisation complaint was refused. The tribunal found: (1) it was a new cause of action from entirely new facts requiring separate investigation; (2) the claimant delayed significantly (7 months from the incident or 4 months beyond the time limit) with no plausible explanation; (3) it would cause prejudice to the respondent in additional costs, witnesses (Juliet Williams and Ms Skeggs), and risk to the final hearing date; (4) the complaint appeared to lack merit on preliminary assessment as contemporaneous notes contradicted the claimant's assertion about the purpose of the telephone call.
Facts
The claimant brought discrimination complaints on grounds of race, sex, age and religion against Buckinghamshire Council. On 12 February 2024, Juliet Williams (Senior HR Consultant for the respondent) telephoned the claimant's ex-partner, Ms Skeggs (also an employee of the respondent), to discuss a conflict of interest issue. The claimant alleged this call was made to pressure him to withdraw his tribunal claim, and that it led to the breakdown of his relationship. On 30 September 2024, the claimant applied to amend his claim to add a victimisation complaint based on this telephone call. The respondent opposed the amendment on grounds of delay, prejudice, merit, and additional costs.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend. Employment Judge Bansal found the proposed victimisation complaint was a new cause of action from entirely new facts, the claimant had delayed significantly (7 months from the incident) without explanation, it would cause prejudice to the respondent in costs and witnesses, and on preliminary assessment the complaint appeared to lack merit as contemporaneous notes contradicted the claimant's assertions about the purpose of the call. The balance of injustice favoured refusing the amendment.
Practical note
Applications to amend to add new causes of action arising from facts entirely separate from the original claim will be scrutinised carefully for delay, prejudice to the other party, and preliminary merits, particularly where substantial additional costs and witnesses would be required.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300674/2024
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No