EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Admissibility of evidence
Amendment
The Tribunal was correct to exclude evidence which the Claimant wished to adduce concerning an alleged refusal, in the course of without prejudice negotiations, to provide a reference for her. BNP Paribas v Mezzotero [2004] IRLR 508 considered. Rush and Tomkins v GLC [1989] AC 1299, Unilever plc v Proctor and Gamble Company [2000] 1 WLR 2436, Savings and Investment Bank Ltd v Fincken [2004] 1 WLR 667 and Ofolue v Bossert [2009] 2 WLR 749 (House of Lords) applied.
2. The Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the Claimant required permission to amend and in refusing an application, prior to closing submissions, to amend for the purpose of relying on an actual comparator.
3. In any event, these rulings did not affect the outcome of the case. Given its findings of fact, the Tribunal’s conclusion was plainly correct and would have been no different if it had ruled in the Claimant’s favour on these points.
Judges:
Richardson J
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0250 – 09 – 2505
Links:
Employment
Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.416158