Claimant v The DPO Centre Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a preliminary hearing on amendment only. The claim of direct disability discrimination regarding dismissal was allowed to be added as an amendment. The substantive merits have not yet been heard.
The victimisation complaint was mentioned in the grounds of resistance and is part of the ongoing proceedings, but has not yet been determined at this preliminary stage.
The claimant's application stated harassment on grounds of disability was part of her claim, but the substantive merits have not yet been heard.
The claimant's application stated discrimination arising from disability was part of her claim under the Equality Act 2010, but the substantive merits have not yet been heard.
The claimant's application stated failure to make reasonable adjustments was part of her claim, but the substantive merits have not yet been heard.
Facts
The claimant, who holds a first class law degree, was dismissed on 14 April 2023 by The DPO Centre Ltd. She brought claims of disability discrimination including direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation and harassment. At a preliminary hearing on 10 February 2025, it became apparent that she had not expressly pleaded that her dismissal itself was an act of direct disability discrimination. She applied to amend her claim to add this. The respondents argued the claim was presented in September 2023, had been through four case management hearings focused on clarifying complaints, and that this was a new claim made 22-23 months out of time.
Decision
The tribunal allowed the claimant's application to amend her claim to include that the dismissal was an act of direct disability discrimination. The judge found this was a new cause of action but arose from the same factual matrix as existing complaints, so did not require a substantially different enquiry. The hardship to the claimant in refusing the amendment outweighed any prejudice to the respondent. The tribunal refused the second part of the amendment relating to the termination procedure as it was insufficiently particularised.
Practical note
An amendment to add a discrimination label to a dismissal already pleaded as part of the factual background may be allowed even if made significantly out of time, where it arises from the same facts and does not require substantial new investigation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1305842/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No