EAT The Claimants brought claims for pre-termination detriments that were alleged to have been imposed as a result of their making protected disclosures. After they had lodged their claims they resigned and wished to claim for constructive dismissal as well. The Employment Tribunal permitted them to amend their Particulars of Claim to permit that claim and directed that there should also be a Scott Schedule giving Further Particulars of matters that were set out in very general terms in the original pleading. Later the Employment Tribunal conducted a Preliminary Hearing, at which the Employment Judge decided (1) that it was not necessary to give permission for a further amendment to be made in relation to the constructive dismissal claim; (2) that permission was required to amend the pre-termination detriments part of the claim but that, since those matters would very largely be before the Employment Tribunal in any event because of the constructive dismissal claim, there would be no prejudice to the Respondent and permission should be granted.
Held, allowing the appeal, the Employment Tribunal had erred in law as to the approach to be taken to the exercise of its broad case management discretion in the circumstances of this case. The Particulars of Claim, even after amendment, did require further amendment if reliance was to be placed on a great many allegations of fact which had not been pleaded to date. Further, that error of law then tainted the Employment Tribunal’s exercise of discretion in relation to the pre-termination detriments part of the case. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a different Employment Judge to decide in accordance with the Judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Singh J
[2015] UKEAT 0251 – 15 – 1112
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565091