When deciding whether to allow an ammendment lateness of the application is only one factor to be taken into account by the employment judge

Baker v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2010] UKEAT 0201_09_0502

www.workrep.co.uk

    Helping You     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME

• When determining whether a complaint has been made, the ET needs to consider the ET1 (originating application) as a whole.
• The "ET should have considered the balance of injustice to the parties of granting or refusing the amendment"(par64).
• Just ticking the box is not enough to file a discrimination complaint. Some details need to be given.
• The ET erred when it refused to hear an application to amend the ET1 owing to the lateness of the application. Lateness was only one factor that should have been taken into account.

Judge Slade in the EAT decided that the originating application (ET1) needs to be read as a whole when considering whether a particular complaint has been made.

A black and dyslexic claimant completed the ET1 without legal assistance. Although he ticked the Disability and Race boxes he failed to make any mention of any disability discrimination.

Citing Office of National Statistics v Ali [2005] the EAT upheld the ET's finding that the originating application did not contain a claim under the DDA.

The EAT however found that the ET erred when it refused to hear the claimant's application to amend the originating application so as to 're-label' events as falling within the DDA. The ET justified its refusal in that the application was made very late in the proceedings (closing submissions). The EAT used Selkent Bus Co Ltd T/A Stagecoach Selkent v Moore [1996] in ruling that the lateness of an application to amend is only one of the considerations to be taken into account when determining such an application.