A group of employees had brought proceedings which appeared (though there was some ambiguity) to be intended as claims for redundancy payments. More than three months after the effective date of termination they sought to amend to plead alternative claims for unfair dismissal.
Held: In hearing appeals from the EAT the first question the court of appeal has to address is whether there was an error of law on the part of the IT that gave the EAT its jurisdiction. The appeal court upheld a decision of the EAT reversing the IT’s decision because there was sufficient evidence that the Tribunal probably misdirected itself for the court to affirm the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal setting their decision aside. The argument that the primary statutory time limits should be treated as decisive was rejected. Lord Donaldson observed: ‘Now, it is quite true to say that Parliament has laid down rules covering the lodging of applications to Industrial Tribunals but it has not laid down rules for time limits in relation to amending applications which have already been made.’
Sir John Donaldson MR
 IRLR 222
England and Wales
Endorsed – Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd NIRC 1974
The Appellant employee had applied for leave to amend his first application by substituting the name of the parent company. The Tribunal held that the rules of procedure relating to time limits went to their jurisdiction and that the amended . .
Cited – Bryant v Housing Corporation CA 21-May-1998
A complainant before an industrial tribunal will only be allowed to amend her statement in order to add an allegation of victimisation for sex discrimination where this arises naturally from the facts alleged. In this case the new claim was rather . .
Cited – Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Ltd EAT 23-Mar-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment
Safeway closed a depot, leading to a large number of redundancies. The Union alleged that consultation was inadequate. Proceedings were initially commenced claiming only . .
Cited – Heald Nickinson Solicitors v Summers and others EAT 21-May-2002
The firm of solicitors appealed an order in which they had been substituted as defendants to a claim for unfair dismissal. They said they had been given no opportunity to object. They had taken over part of a firm which had got into difficulties and . .
Cited – Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills EAT 9-Oct-2015
EAT Practice and Procedure : Amendment – Amendment of an ET claim to add a new cause of action – ACAS Early Conciliation (Section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (as amended))
At a Preliminary Hearing, . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.186770