Agency worker's late bid to add race discrimination claims rejected
An agency worker who withdrew his unfair dismissal claim was refused permission to add new race discrimination and harassment claims, and ordered to pay costs.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-workers
- #unfair-dismissal
- #withdrawal
- #costs-order
- #amendment-denied
Key facts
- The claimant withdrew his claims for unfair dismissal and compensation under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.
- The claimant applied to amend his claim to add race discrimination and harassment claims.
- The amendment was denied as it introduced entirely new claims with no connection to the original claims.
- The new claims were significantly out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
- The claimant was ordered to pay £100 costs to each respondent for unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Termination of temporary assignment
The claimant's temporary assignment ended, effective 1 June 2018.
-
Claim form submitted
The claimant submitted his original claim form for unfair dismissal and breach of Agency Workers Regulations.
-
List of issues circulated
The first respondent circulated a list of issues for agreement.
-
Amended grounds served
The claimant filed and served draft amended particulars of claim adding race discrimination and harassment claims.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard the respondents' applications to strike out and the claimant's application to amend.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal issued judgment dismissing the original claims upon withdrawal and denying the amendment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the claimant to amend his claim to add race discrimination and harassment claims that were not mentioned in the original claim form and were brought after the statutory time limit.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the original claims for unfair dismissal and breach of the Agency Workers Regulations after the claimant withdrew them. It then refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add race discrimination and harassment claims.
The key reasons were:
- The new claims were entirely new and unrelated to the original claims, requiring different facts and evidence.
- The new claims were brought well outside the three-month time limit for discrimination claims, and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
- The claimant had no good explanation for the delay, and the respondents would face prejudice from the passage of time.
The claimant was ordered to pay £100 costs to each respondent for unreasonable conduct in pursuing the amendment.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you want to bring a discrimination claim, you must include it in your original claim form or apply to amend promptly — waiting until a preliminary hearing is too late.
- Amendments that introduce entirely new causes of action with no connection to the original claims are very unlikely to be allowed.
- Time limits for discrimination claims are strict — you have three months from the act complained of, and tribunals rarely extend time without a very good reason.
- Withdrawing your original claims does not automatically allow you to start fresh with new claims — you still need permission to amend, which will be judged on its own merits.
A late change of direction that didn't pay off
This case illustrates the risks of trying to fundamentally change the nature of an employment tribunal claim at the last minute. The claimant, an agency worker, originally brought claims for unfair dismissal and breach of the Agency Workers Regulations after his temporary assignment ended. But on the eve of a preliminary hearing — and after the respondents had already applied to strike out his claims — he sought to abandon those claims and replace them with entirely new allegations of race discrimination and harassment.
The tribunal was clear: this was not a simple relabeling of existing facts. The original claim form contained no hint of discrimination, and the new claims would require completely different evidence and legal arguments. The claimant's representative argued that the claimant, as a litigant in person, had not realised he could bring a discrimination claim. But the tribunal noted that the new claims were also well outside the three-month time limit for discrimination claims, and there was no good reason for the delay.
What the respondents did right
Both Hays Specialist Recruitment Ltd and Transport for London opposed the amendment from the start, arguing that it would cause prejudice and that the new claims were hopelessly out of time. Their prompt application to strike out the original claims and their clear opposition to the amendment put them in a strong position. The tribunal accepted their submissions and also awarded them costs of £100 each, reflecting the claimant's unreasonable conduct in pursuing the amendment.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering a tribunal claim, the message is clear: get your claims right first time. If you think you may have a discrimination claim, include it in your original claim form or apply to amend as soon as possible. Waiting until a hearing — especially after the original claims have been withdrawn — is almost certain to fail. The tribunal's approach here follows the well-known principle from Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore: amendments that change the entire basis of a claim are treated much more strictly than those that simply add new labels to existing facts.
Similar cases
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Former employee wins unfair dismissal claim against Asda
A former employee succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Ltd, but her age discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. She was awarded £27,924.06.
Former employee ordered to pay costs after threatening to reveal damaging information
A former employee who threatened to reveal damaging information unless his claim was settled has been ordered to pay £750 costs after withdrawing his claim minutes before a hearing.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee with less than two years' service had her unfair dismissal complaint struck out by the tribunal. Other discrimination claims remain pending.