Administrative officer with multiple disabilities wins right to add discrimination claim
A tribunal has allowed an administrative officer to amend her disability discrimination claim to include a section 15 claim, while refusing to add new disabilities. The respondent's strike-out applications were largely rejected.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #amendment
- #mental-health
- #physical-impairment
- #strike-out-application
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the first respondent from 11 October 2017 to 6 December 2019 as an Administrative Officer assigned to the second respondent.
- On 24 October 2019 the claimant was arrested on suspicion of threatening to kill her line manager, Robert Sugrue.
- The claimant's assignment with the second respondent was terminated on 25 October 2019, and she was dismissed by the first respondent on 6 December 2019.
- The claimant was found to be disabled by Meralgia paresthetica from 19 October 2017, sleep apnoea from 4 July 2013, and severe anxiety and depression from 1 July 2019.
- The claimant's application to amend her claim to add new disabilities and a new factual basis was refused, except for adding a section 15 claim based on existing facts.
- The respondents' applications to strike out the claim were refused, except for the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims against the second respondent which were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Timeline
-
Diagnosed with sleep apnoea
The claimant was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnoea.
-
Started employment with first respondent
The claimant began working for Brook Street Limited as an Administrative Officer assigned to the Secretary of State for Justice.
-
Diagnosed with Meralgia paresthetica
The claimant was diagnosed with Meralgia paresthetica, a condition causing chronic neuropathic pain.
-
Diagnosed with severe anxiety and depression
The claimant's GP recorded a diagnosis of anxiety with depression, marking the onset of a disabling mental health condition.
-
Arrested on suspicion of threat to kill
The claimant was arrested on suspicion of threatening to kill her line manager, Robert Sugrue.
-
Assignment terminated by second respondent
The claimant's assignment with the Secretary of State for Justice was terminated.
-
Dismissed by first respondent
The claimant was dismissed from her employment with Brook Street Limited with effect from this date.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant presented her claim form to the Employment Tribunal, initially represented by a solicitor.
-
Detained under Mental Health Act
The claimant was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and admitted to The Caludon Centre.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Tegerdine held a case management hearing, setting directions including the claimant's application to amend.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 and whether she could amend her claim to add new disabilities and a new factual basis for discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the claimant was disabled by three conditions: Meralgia paresthetica (from 19 October 2017), sleep apnoea (from 4 July 2013), and severe anxiety and depression (from 1 July 2019).
The claimant's application to amend her claim was partially successful. She was allowed to add a claim for discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, but only in relation to existing facts. Her attempt to add new disabilities and a new factual basis was refused.
The respondents' applications to strike out the claim were largely rejected. However, the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims against the second respondent (Secretary of State for Justice) were struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction – the claimant was not employed by that respondent.
No compensation was awarded at this preliminary stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have multiple health conditions, ensure you provide medical evidence for each one at the earliest opportunity to support an amendment application.
- Employment tribunals will carefully scrutinise late amendments, especially those introducing entirely new factual allegations.
- You can only bring unfair dismissal or wrongful dismissal claims against your actual employer, not against a client or end-user you were assigned to.
- Being detained under the Mental Health Act does not automatically prevent you from pursuing a claim, but the tribunal may grant stays to allow recovery.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the procedural hurdles that can arise in disability discrimination claims, particularly when a claimant has multiple health conditions and seeks to amend their claim after it has been presented. The claimant, an administrative officer with two years' service, was dismissed after being arrested on suspicion of threatening her line manager. She later sought to argue that her dismissal was linked to her disabilities, which included physical conditions (Meralgia paresthetica and sleep apnoea) and mental health conditions (severe anxiety and depression).
The tribunal's decision to allow a limited amendment – adding a section 15 claim based on existing facts – shows that tribunals will consider fairness to both sides. However, the refusal to add new disabilities or a new factual basis highlights the importance of getting your claim right early on, especially if you are initially represented by a solicitor.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondents' strike-out applications were largely unsuccessful because the tribunal found the claim had reasonable prospects of success. However, the second respondent succeeded in striking out the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims against it on jurisdictional grounds – the claimant was employed by Brook Street Limited, not the Secretary of State for Justice. This is a reminder to claimants to identify the correct respondent from the outset.
Why the result matters for similar claims
For claimants with mental health conditions, this case is encouraging: the tribunal recognised that severe anxiety and depression amounted to a disability from July 2019, before the dismissal. It also showed that even a period of detention under the Mental Health Act does not necessarily derail a claim, as the tribunal granted a stay and later allowed the case to proceed.
For employers, the message is clear: applications to strike out disability discrimination claims will not succeed simply because the claimant has complex health issues or has sought to amend their claim late in the day. The tribunal will look at the substance of the allegations and whether they have any reasonable prospect of success.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal claim dismissed despite severe mental health: the 'reasonable period' trap
A bank employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as out of time, even though the tribunal accepted her severe mental health made it not reasonably practicable to claim within the first three months.
Dismissed after absence management meetings: tribunal rejects disability discrimination claims
An employee with a mental health disability lost all claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination after the tribunal found the health board's absence management process was reasonable.
Dismissed during long-term sick leave: claims thrown out for missing tribunal deadlines
A production operative with 13 years' service was dismissed for capability due to ill health after a telephone meeting. Most of her claims were struck out as out of time, but one disability discrimination claim will proceed.
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.