Claimant v Estates & Law Limited (in voluntary liquidation)

This was a preliminary hearing to determine whether to allow amendment to add individual respondents. The tribunal refused the application to amend on the grounds of extreme delay (3¾ years), lack of justification for the delay, and prejudice to proposed respondents. The underlying whistleblowing detriment claims against the original respondent were not substantively determined at this hearing.

Multiple detriment allegations were pleaded against the original respondent (hours reduction, grievance handling, workload removal, etc.). The application to add individual respondents in respect of these detriments was refused. The tribunal noted that a default judgment had been entered against the original respondent but remedy had not yet been determined.

Disability discrimination claims based on bowel cancer were pleaded. The respondent accepted the claimant had the condition but denied knowledge. The application to add individual respondents was refused on limitation and prejudice grounds. The underlying claims against the original respondent remain to be determined at a remedy hearing.

Reasonable adjustment claims were pleaded but appeared to duplicate other claims. The application to add individual respondents was refused. The substance of these claims against the original respondent was not determined at this preliminary hearing.

Unfair dismissal claim added by amendment in February 2022 following dismissal on 9 November 2021. The respondent contended dismissal was for misconduct. The claim against the original respondent was subject to a default judgment but remedy is yet to be determined. The application to pursue this against individual respondents was refused.

Automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure added by amendment in February 2022. Protected disclosures identified as email of 20 August 2021 and subsequent repetitions. Default judgment entered against original respondent but remedy not yet determined. Application to add individual respondents refused.

Part-time worker less favourable treatment claims under Part-time Workers Regulations 2000 were pleaded (hours reduction, removal of unpaid lunch break, etc.). The tribunal noted that such claims can only be brought against an employer, not individual managers, raising jurisdictional issues for the proposed individual respondents. The application to amend was refused in any event.