EAT Practice and Procedure : Amendment
ET1 alleged unfair dismissal (unfair selection for redundancy), and direct discrimination (because of disability) arising out of the employer including two periods of absence caused by the disability when scoring sickness absence in the selection process. The Claimant later applied to add claims of direct and indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and harassment, focussed principally on aspects of his treatment in the two three years prior to dismissal, which the Employment Tribunal was entitled to think had no true casual link to the redundancy selection. It rejected the amendment (except where clearly linked to the time of selection), relying on Selkent v Moore, and the absence of any explanation for the lateness. A sustained argument that European legislative material and case-law showed such an emphasis on rooting out discrimination in any shape or form that the ET should have allowed the amendment was not accepted. This was said to be an error of law, as was an arguable rejection by the ET of paying regard to the policy of the law in exercising its discretion.
Held: properly read, the ET judgment could not be interpreted to mean that the ET had not had in mind the underlying policy imperatives. The exercise of discretion was not flawed. In any event, if it had been for that reason, the Employment Appeal Tribunal would have reached the same conclusion.
Judges:
Langstaff P J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0363 – 12 – 1710
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.468950