Olaleye v Liberata UK and Others: EAT 29 Oct 2013

EAT Practice and Procedure : Application/Claim – Amendment
The Claimant made claims in respect of disability. In her forms ET1 she stated that she suffered from stress incontinence following a prolapse. She stated that the consequence of the incontinence was that she could not control her bodily functions which gave rise to comment from her colleagues and made it difficult for her to work in an open-plan office. She claimed that she became anxious and stressed and suffered from insomnia. At a Pre-Hearing Review to determine whether or not she was disabled it became apparent that the Respondents expected evidence to be led on her physical condition only. She sought to amend to include stress and anxiety and insomnia. The Employment Judge allowed her amendment to the extent of including insomnia only. She appealed. Held that the case should be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for a PHR on all of the Claimant’s claims including that she suffered from stress and anxiety as a result of the underlying condition of stress incontinence.

Lady Stacey
[2013] UKEAT 0445 – 13 – 2910
England and Wales


Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522351