Claimant v Ergea UK & Ireland Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an existing pleaded claim that continues to proceed. The case remains listed for final hearing on 4-12 August 2025.
This was an existing pleaded claim that continues to proceed. The case remains listed for final hearing on 4-12 August 2025.
Application to amend to add this claim was refused. The claim was a new head of claim, substantially out of time, not raised in the original Claim Form despite the claimant knowing about the alleged incidents. Tribunal found it was an afterthought to strengthen the existing claim and lacked evidential basis. The balance of justice favoured refusal given prejudice to respondent, passage of time affecting cogency of evidence, and increased costs.
Application to amend to add harassment related to race was refused. The allegations were historic, dating from May 2017 through to 2023, based on vague dates and verbal statements. The cogency of evidence would be affected by passage of time, witnesses were only now identified, and the claim was not raised in the original Claim Form. Tribunal found the balance of justice favoured refusal as the claim was an afterthought and substantially out of time.
The claimant has an overtime claim for May and June 2023 that continues to proceed. Orders were made requiring the claimant to provide precise dates for this claim by 3 January 2025.
Facts
The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination against his former employer. At a preliminary hearing in December 2024, he applied to amend his claim to add claims of direct age discrimination and harassment related to race. The claimant explained he was unfamiliar with tribunal procedures and had limited financial resources. The alleged harassment incidents dated from 2017 to 2023. The respondent opposed the application on grounds that the claims were significantly out of time, lacked merit, and would prejudice the respondent due to the passage of time affecting evidence and increased costs.
Decision
Employment Judge Bansal refused the application to amend. The judge found that the two new claims were not minor amendments, were substantially out of time, and appeared to be afterthoughts to strengthen the existing claim. The claimant had failed to explain why these claims were not raised in the original Claim Form. The balance of justice favoured refusal given the historic nature of the harassment allegations, the effect on cogency of evidence, and increased costs to the respondent. The claimant's existing claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal continue to a full hearing.
Practical note
Applications to amend to add new heads of claim that are substantially out of time will be refused where they appear to be afterthoughts, the claimant cannot explain the delay, and the passage of time will prejudice the respondent's ability to defend the claims.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 1300173/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No