Amendment refused: late addition of protected disclosure claims struck out

This case shows how strict tribunals can be when a claimant tries to add new allegations after the statutory time limit has passed. The claimant, a security officer, was dismissed in October 2021 and brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal based on protected disclosures. He originally relied on certain disclosures but later sought to add two more: one about an Adobe Flash vulnerability and another about a lone worker safety system. He applied to amend his claim in March 2023, over a year after presenting his original claim.

The tribunal refused the amendment. The key issue was timing: the new disclosures were made in early 2021, and the claimant knew about them at the time of his dismissal. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to have included them in his original claim or at least by the case management hearing in February 2023. Because he did not, the amendment was out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them.

What the respondent did right

The respondent, Alpha Response (2004) Ltd t/a Red Support Services, successfully argued that the amendment should be refused. They pointed out that the claimant had ample opportunity to raise these disclosures earlier, and that the List of Issues had already been agreed. The tribunal agreed, noting that the claimant had not provided a good reason for the delay.

What this means for similar claims

This case is a reminder that claimants must act promptly when bringing a claim. If you are relying on protected disclosures, you should include all relevant disclosures in your initial claim form. The tribunal will not allow you to add new ones later if you could have included them at the start. It also highlights the importance of being fully prepared at case management hearings — if you forget to mention something, you may lose the chance to rely on it later.