EAT Claimant sought to add a new respondent by way of amendment, almost seven months after he was dismissed by the existing first respondents and some four months after he had lodged his claim with the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the amendment on the basis that the claimant was not adding a new claim but ‘merely seeking to amend to take account of the situation in which he found himself’ and it was just and equitable to allow the amendment. The new respondents appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal who upheld the appeal and remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal to rehear the amendment application. Observations made regarding the guidance on amendments given in Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836.
Judges:
The Honourable Lady Smith
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0009 – 06 – 1108, UKEATS/0009/06
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Gillick v BP Chemicals EAT 1993
Ms Gillick had made an application based on sex discrimination in the first place against an agency which had contracted out her services to various divisions of BP Chemicals Ltd. The Respondents were the Company which had done that and in their . .
Cited – Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore EAT 2-May-1996
The claimant had been summarily dismissed. His application at first made no mention of a complaint that it had related to his trades union activities. He wrote to the secretary seeking amendment of his claim to include a claim that his dismissal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.257867