Partially granted amendment to add details to reasonable adjustments claim, but new sex discrimination claims refused
A former employee was allowed to amend her claim to add details to a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim, but her attempt to add new claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment was refused by the tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant applied to amend her claim on 24 June 2023.
- The amendment sought to add details to a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim.
- The amendment also sought to add new claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment.
- The respondent objected to the amendment.
- The tribunal partially granted the amendment for reasonable adjustments but refused the sex discrimination and harassment claims.
Timeline
-
Original claim presented
The claimant presented her original claim, including claims of disability discrimination, sex discrimination, and unfair dismissal.
-
First case management hearing
A preliminary hearing was held to manage the case.
-
Application to amend filed
The claimant applied to amend her claim, with details provided on 2 September 2023.
-
Second case management hearing
The hearing was listed to deal with the amendment application, but the claimant withdrew it.
-
Amendment application decided
The tribunal partially granted the amendment for reasonable adjustments but refused the sex discrimination and harassment claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the claimant to amend her claim to add new factual details to an existing reasonable adjustments claim and to add entirely new claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment, considering the balance of hardship and injustice to both parties.
The outcome
The tribunal partially granted the application to amend.
- The amendment to add details to the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim was allowed, as it merely added factual detail to an existing allegation and would not greatly expand the evidential demands on the respondent.
- The proposed new claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment were refused. The tribunal found that these were entirely new allegations, considerably out of time (relating to incidents in June 2021 and March 2022), and would require significant amendment to the response and evidence gathering, causing prejudice to the respondent.
No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary decision on amendment only.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you want to add a new claim after the initial deadline, you must show good reason for the delay and that it won't unfairly prejudice the other side.
- Adding factual details to an existing claim is more likely to be allowed than introducing entirely new allegations, especially if they are out of time.
- Withdrawing an amendment application and then re-applying can harm your credibility; the tribunal will consider the timing and manner of the application.
This case shows how tribunals balance the need for justice against the practical impact of late amendments. The former employee, representing herself, sought to add new claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment to her existing disability and sex discrimination case. However, the tribunal refused these new claims because they were based on incidents from 2021 and 2022, well outside the usual time limits, and would have required the Ministry of Justice to gather evidence on events over three years old.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal applied the balancing test from the Selkent case, weighing the nature of the amendment, time limits, and the timing of the application. The proposed new claims were entirely new causes of action, not just additional details. The claimant had withdrawn a previous application to amend, which counted against her. The tribunal also noted that the respondent would face significant prejudice if the amendment were allowed, as it would require substantial changes to their response and additional evidence.
Why the partial grant matters
The tribunal did allow the amendment to add details to the existing reasonable adjustments claim, as it simply clarified the existing allegation. This distinction is important for claimants: minor clarifications are treated more leniently than entirely new claims. For employers, the case reinforces that late amendments can be resisted if they introduce new, time-barred allegations that would cause unfair hardship.
Similar cases
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Dismissed after 10-month absence: employer's reasonable adjustments were enough
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an assistant branch manager with 28 years' service who was absent for 10 months with anxiety. The employer had offered multiple adjustments but the claimant insisted on a customer ban.
Security guard dismissed after losing sight: employer failed to explore redeployment
A security guard who lost most of his sight was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against by Mitie Ltd, which failed to consider reasonable adjustments or a vacant role he suggested.