NHS employee's late amendment to add discrimination claims refused by tribunal
An NHS employee who tried to amend her claim three years after presenting it, adding new disability discrimination and whistleblowing allegations, has been refused by the tribunal due to the balance of hardship favouring the trust.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant presented her claim on 19 August 2020.
- The claimant applied to amend her claim on 17 July 2023, with proposed wording on 22 August 2023.
- The amendments sought to add new allegations of disability discrimination and further protected disclosures and detriments.
- The respondent objected to amendments that would introduce new and fresh allegations.
- The tribunal refused the amendment application, finding the balance of hardship favoured the respondent.
- The final hearing was listed for January 2024, already postponed twice.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
Ms Y Hood presented her original claim form (ET1) to the tribunal.
-
First preliminary hearing
A closed telephone preliminary hearing was held before Employment Judge P Britton. The claim for ordinary unfair dismissal was dismissed for lack of qualifying service; remaining claims continued.
-
Amendment application made
The claimant made a general application to amend her claim.
-
Proposed amendments set out
The claimant provided the actual proposed wording of the amendments in a Scott Schedule.
-
Preliminary hearing on amendment
A hybrid CVP preliminary hearing was held before Employment Judge Ahmed to determine the amendment application.
-
Preliminary hearing continued
The hearing continued and the tribunal refused the amendment application.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The judgment refusing the amendment was sent to the parties.
-
Reconsideration refused
The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused on the papers.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the employee to amend her claim to add new allegations of disability discrimination and further protected disclosures and detriments, considering the delay and the impact on both parties.
The outcome
The tribunal refused most of the proposed amendments, finding that the balance of hardship favoured the respondent.
- The original claim was presented in August 2020, but the amendment application was not made until July 2023, with full details provided in August 2023.
- The final hearing was listed for January 2024 and had already been postponed twice.
- The respondent would have faced significant prejudice if the amendments were allowed, including further delay and additional costs.
- The claimant, who was a litigant in person, had not provided a good explanation for the delay.
Lessons & takeaways
- Apply to amend your claim as soon as possible after discovering new facts; delay can be fatal.
- If you are a litigant in person, seek advice early about the scope of your claim to avoid needing late amendments.
- The tribunal will balance the hardship to both parties; a late amendment that disrupts a fixed hearing date is unlikely to succeed.
- Keep a clear record of all potential claims from the outset to minimise the need for amendments later.
This case shows the importance of bringing all relevant claims early in the tribunal process. The employee, an NHS worker, presented her original claim in August 2020, but waited until July 2023 – nearly three years later – to apply to add new allegations of disability discrimination and further whistleblowing detriments. By that time, the final hearing was scheduled for January 2024 and had already been postponed twice.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal applied the well-known principles from Selkent Bus Company v Moore, which require balancing the hardship to both parties. The key factors were the length of the delay, the explanation for it, and the impact on the respondent. The employee said she had been unwell and had difficulty obtaining legal advice, but the tribunal found this did not justify the delay, especially since she had been able to progress other parts of her claim.
Why the result matters
This decision is a reminder that tribunals will not allow claims to be constantly reshaped close to a final hearing. The respondent, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, had already prepared its case based on the existing allegations. Allowing the amendments would have required further investigation, potentially adjourning the hearing again, which would have been unfair to the trust and other parties waiting for tribunal time.
For claimants, the lesson is clear: identify and include all potential claims in your original ET1, or apply to amend as soon as new issues arise. Waiting years, even with a good reason, may not be enough to persuade a tribunal to grant permission.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim dismissed as out of time: litigant in person failed to act promptly
A multiskilled operative who resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal for whistleblowing had his claims thrown out because he did not present them in time. The tribunal also rejected his disability discrimination claim for lack of medical evidence.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Supply teacher wins right to add victimisation claim against school
A tribunal allowed a supply teacher to amend her disability discrimination claim to include victimisation, and later granted an anonymity order after initially refusing it.
NHS employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims but avoids costs order
An NHS employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were dismissed, but the tribunal refused the Trust's application for costs, finding she had a genuine belief in her case and did not act unreasonably.