Claimant v Standard Life Assets and Employee Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a procedural judgment dealing with case management matters and applications to amend. The substantive equal pay claim alleging like work with named comparators remains to be determined at the final hearing commencing 20th January 2025.
This claim was added by amendment without objection but respondents indicated they did not understand it. Matter to be dealt with at final hearing or in correspondence.
Claimant applied to amend to include constructive unfair dismissal claim based on resignation effective 31st January 2025. Application refused due to balance of prejudice - would necessitate postponement of final hearing already scheduled. Claimant advised she could file fresh ET1 as claim would still be in time.
Facts
Claimant brought equal pay claim alleging like work with named comparators dating back to 2017. Settlement negotiations broke down over claimant's requirement for payment into pension fund to preserve housing assistance eligibility. Claimant's union-funded solicitors withdrew December 2024 when she refused to follow advice to accept settlement. Claimant then applied to amend to add constructive dismissal claim and strike out response alleging respondent made false statements during without prejudice negotiations about inability to pay into pension. Respondent applied to amend response to consolidate pleadings.
Decision
Tribunal refused claimant's strike out application finding no unambiguous impropriety and that even if established would not warrant strike out. Granted respondent's amendment to consolidate pleadings. Granted claimant's amendment only regarding car allowance but refused amendments to add constructive dismissal and extend equal pay period. Refused claimant's postponement application under Rule 30A. Final hearing to proceed 20 January 2025.
Practical note
Without prejudice privilege will be strictly maintained absent clear unambiguous impropriety, and alleged misstatements in settlement negotiations requiring factual investigation do not meet that threshold; self-representation arising from withdrawal of solicitors late in proceedings will not automatically justify postponement under Rule 30A.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4103733/2023
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No