Fixed-term worker allowed to add detail to less favourable treatment claim
A tribunal has allowed a fixed-term employee to amend his claim to add further particulars of less favourable treatment, despite the application being made just days before the hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #fixed-term-contracts
- #amendment-application
- #less-favourable-treatment
- #case-management
- #time-limits
Key facts
- The claimant was employed on a series of fixed-term contracts from 15 October 2018 to 30 September 2021.
- The claimant initially brought claims for redundancy payment, unfair dismissal, unpaid London weighting, holiday pay, and less favourable treatment as a fixed-term worker.
- By the date of the preliminary hearing, only claims for unfair dismissal and less favourable treatment as a fixed-term worker remained.
- The claimant applied to amend his claim on 2 October 2023 to particularise the less favourable treatment allegations.
- The respondent objected, arguing the amendments were out of time and would cause prejudice.
- The tribunal granted the amendment, finding the balance of justice favoured the claimant.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Public Health England as an Evidence and Evaluation Lead on a fixed-term contract.
-
First extension
Fixed-term contract extended by one year to 14 October 2020.
-
Temporary role started
Claimant offered temporary role as Principal Intelligence Analyst in Adult Social Care.
-
Fixed-term contract ended
Claimant's fixed-term contract ended.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the tribunal.
-
Respondent's grounds of resistance
Respondent submitted grounds of resistance, noting lack of particularisation of unfavourable treatment.
-
Claims withdrawn
Claimant withdrew redundancy pay and London weighting claims.
-
Holiday pay claim withdrawn
Claimant withdrew holiday pay claim.
-
CMA and List of Issues sent
Respondent sent Case Management Agenda and List of Issues to tribunal, prompting claimant to seek amendments.
-
Application to amend
Claimant applied to amend his claim, attaching marked-up version.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hearing on amendment application.
-
Judgment given
Tribunal granted permission to amend.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his claim to add further particulars of less favourable treatment as a fixed-term worker, considering the balance of injustice and hardship.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the claimant permission to amend his claim to add further particulars of less favourable treatment as a fixed-term worker.
The key reasons were:
- The amendments were not entirely new claims but particularised existing allegations.
- The respondent had itself asked the claimant to clarify the alleged unfavourable treatment.
- The application was made promptly after the respondent's case management agenda highlighted the lack of particularisation.
- The balance of justice favoured the claimant, as the prejudice to the respondent could be managed by case management directions.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as this was a preliminary hearing on amendment.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are a fixed-term employee and believe you have been treated less favourably than permanent staff, you should set out the specific instances of unfavourable treatment as clearly as possible from the outset.
- Tribunals can allow amendments to claims even close to a hearing, especially if the respondent has asked for more detail and the amendment does not introduce entirely new claims.
- Respondents who invite further particulars from a claimant may find it difficult to oppose a subsequent amendment application based on those requests.
- Case management hearings are a good opportunity to clarify and expand your claim, but you should act promptly once you become aware that further detail is needed.
This case shows how tribunals approach applications to amend a claim late in the day. The claimant, an Evidence and Evaluation Lead on a series of fixed-term contracts, had brought claims for unfair dismissal and less favourable treatment as a fixed-term worker. However, the particulars of the less favourable treatment were sparse, and the respondent asked for clarification.
What happened
In response to the respondent's case management agenda, which noted that the claimant had not particularised the unfavourable treatment, the claimant applied to amend his claim just two days before the preliminary hearing. The respondent objected, arguing that the amendments were out of time and would cause prejudice by requiring new evidence and witnesses.
The tribunal disagreed. It found that the amendments were not entirely new claims but rather particularised existing allegations. The respondent had itself invited the claimant to provide further information, and the application was made promptly after that invitation. The balance of justice favoured allowing the amendment, with any prejudice to the respondent to be managed through case management directions.
What this means for similar claims
For fixed-term workers, this case illustrates that tribunals are willing to allow amendments to clarify less favourable treatment claims, even if the application is made close to a hearing. The key is that the amendment must not introduce entirely new causes of action and must be made promptly once the need for further detail becomes apparent.
For employers, the case serves as a reminder that asking a claimant to provide more information can open the door to a successful amendment application. If you want to limit the scope of a claim, it may be better to seek strike-out or deposit orders rather than inviting further particulars.
Similar cases
Pharmacy technician allowed to add unfair dismissal claim after disability discrimination case
A tribunal allowed a Boots pharmacy technician with 12 years' service to amend her claim to include unfair dismissal, finding the new claim was a relabelling of existing facts.
Support worker loses whistleblowing claim after rejecting zero-hours offer
A support worker who claimed his dismissal was automatically unfair for whistleblowing lost his case after the tribunal found no link between his disclosures and the end of his fixed-term contract.
Care worker's whistleblowing detriment claims dismissed after tribunal rejects late amendments
An employment tribunal dismissed a care worker's claims that he suffered detriments for making protected disclosures, and refused to allow him to add a religion/belief discrimination claim that was out of time.
Pregnancy discrimination claim refused: amendment application too late
A former employee of Three Rivers District Council was refused permission to add pregnancy discrimination claims to her existing race and constructive dismissal case, as the application came over two years after the time limit expired.