Bank manager allowed to add whistleblowing and equal pay claims after dismissal
A tribunal has allowed a former Stress Testing Controls Analysis Manager to amend her claim to include public interest disclosure detriment and an additional equal pay comparator, but refused most of her sex and race discrimination allegations.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Stress Testing Controls Analysis Manager from 10 September 2018 to 30 September 2020.
- She presented a first claim on 11 December 2020 alleging sex discrimination, equal pay, unfair dismissal, and automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing.
- She made multiple applications to amend her claim between May 2021 and July 2022, adding public interest disclosure detriment, race discrimination, and additional comparators.
- The respondent objected to the amendments, arguing they were out of time and would cause prejudice.
- The tribunal granted permission for some amendments (certain public interest disclosures and detriments, and an additional equal pay comparator) but refused others (most sex and race discrimination claims).
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as Stress Testing Controls Analysis Manager.
-
Reorganisation begins
A reorganisation started that eventually led to the claimant's dismissal.
-
Employment end
Claimant was dismissed.
-
First claim presented
Claimant presented her first claim (1311165/2020) alleging sex discrimination, equal pay, unfair dismissal, and automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing.
-
First amendment intimated
Claimant sent 'Consolidated Particulars' seeking to add public interest disclosure detriment, race discrimination, and harassment claims.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Harding ordered claimant to provide further particulars and make a formal amendment application.
-
June 2021 amendment application
Claimant made formal application to amend, including 7 public interest disclosures, 12 detriments, sexual harassment, religious belief discrimination, and a new equal pay comparator.
-
Second claim presented
Claimant presented a second claim (1304421/2021) concerning grievance investigations and appeal.
-
January 2022 document
Claimant provided updated document limiting amendments to public interest disclosure detriment, direct sex/race discrimination, and equal pay comparator.
-
July 2022 application
Claimant made formal application for retrospective extension of time, effectively a second amendment application.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Connolly heard the amendment application over two days via CVP.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Connolly issued written reasons granting some amendments and refusing others.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the claimant to amend her existing claim to add new complaints of whistleblowing detriment, direct sex and race discrimination, and an additional equal pay comparator, balancing the interests of justice and considering time limits and prejudice to both parties.
The outcome
The tribunal partially granted the claimant's application to amend her claim. It allowed amendments relating to certain public interest disclosures and detriments, and the addition of an equal pay comparator. However, it refused most of the proposed sex and race discrimination claims, finding they were out of time and had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent's application to strike out the second claim was not pursued as the claimant clarified it raised only post-termination complaints.
No compensation was awarded at this preliminary stage as the substantive claims are yet to be heard.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you want to add new claims to an existing tribunal case, apply as soon as possible — delays can be fatal, especially if the new claims are out of time.
- Tribunals will look at whether the new claims have a reasonable prospect of success; vague or poorly particularised allegations are likely to be refused.
- Public interest disclosure (whistleblowing) claims can be added even after the original claim if they arise from the same facts and are within time.
- Employers should note that tribunals may allow amendments that do not cause significant prejudice, even if the original claim has been running for some time.
A case about amending claims — and the limits of tribunal flexibility
This case shows how employment tribunals handle requests to change a claim after it has been filed. The claimant, a Stress Testing Controls Analysis Manager, was dismissed in September 2020 and initially brought claims for sex discrimination, equal pay, unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing. Over the following year and a half, she made several attempts to add new complaints — including race discrimination, additional whistleblowing detriments, and further equal pay comparators.
The respondent, National Westminster Bank PLC, objected to all the amendments, arguing they were out of time and would cause unfair prejudice. The tribunal had to balance the interests of justice: allowing the claimant to pursue potentially valid complaints versus protecting the respondent from having to defend stale or poorly defined allegations.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal granted permission for some amendments but refused others. It allowed the claimant to add certain public interest disclosure detriments and an additional equal pay comparator, finding these had a reasonable prospect of success and were not significantly out of time. However, it refused most of the proposed sex and race discrimination claims, concluding they were brought too late and lacked sufficient detail to be fairly litigated.
The decision highlights that tribunals will not automatically allow amendments just because the original claim is still ongoing. Claimants must act promptly and provide clear particulars. For employers, the case shows that objecting to amendments can succeed if the new claims are weak or prejudicial.
Why this matters
For anyone considering bringing an employment claim, this case is a reminder that the tribunal's rules on amendments are designed to ensure fairness. If you need to add new allegations, do so as early as possible and be prepared to explain why they are within time. For employers, it demonstrates that robustly challenging late or speculative amendments can prevent cases from expanding unfairly.
The substantive claims — including the permitted amendments — will now proceed to a full hearing, where the tribunal will decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether she suffered discrimination or detriment for whistleblowing.
Similar cases
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
Former employee awarded notice pay after tribunal extends time for late claim
A tribunal extended time for an unfair dismissal claim filed 11 days late, but struck it out for lack of merit. The claimant succeeded only on a breach of contract claim for notice pay, receiving £948.78.
Former employee's claims struck out as out of time and for unreasonable conduct
A former employee's unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and discrimination claims have been struck out after being brought too late, with the tribunal also citing unreasonable conduct. The respondent was awarded £5,000 in costs.
Governance Manager's discrimination and unfair dismissal claims rejected
A Governance Manager who brought multiple claims of discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal after being made redundant has lost her case. The tribunal ordered her to pay £20,000 in costs.