It had not been open to an employment judge to decide that the claimants merely sought to re-label their claims when seeking an amendment to claims alleging discrimination on the ground of religion and belief and non-payment of holiday pay. The amendment sought to introduce, based on largely but not entirely the same facts, claims for compensation for breach of the Employment Act 1999 (Blacklisting) Regulations 2010 (the 2010 Regulations).
When applying the well known Selkent guidelines, the judge had correctly discerned that the factual basis of the claims was largely unchanged, other than by developments since they were originally presented; but she failed to take into account the substantial differences between the nature of the causes of action asserted in the original claims and those advanced in the draft amended claims; and, in consequence, the change in the remedies sought.
A claim under the 2010 Regulations requires the existence and use of a prohibited list. The cause of action is a form of discrimination quite unlike discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. The initial claims appeared to rely on non-payment of holiday pay but did not, unlike the draft amended claims, make clear that the remedy sought in respect of the non-payment was not the payment of the sums due but compensation for breach of the 2010 Regulations.
The judge had also omitted to address the respondent’s contention that the claims, as originally presented, had been brought out of time. Although she had appreciated that the Selkent guidelines included consideration of time limits, she had considered the time limits issue on the basis that it was appropriate to treat the original claims as having been made under the 2010 Regulations at the time they were presented.
The judge’s exercise of discretion to allow the amendment was therefore flawed. The application for permission to amend the claims would be remitted for reconsideration by a different employment judge. Time limits would also need to be revisited as part of the reconsideration exercise, including consideration of whether the claims as originally presented had been brought out of time.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0283 – 19 – 1706
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.652141
