Equal pay claim refused: amendment too late and too far from original case
A former employee’s attempt to add an equal pay complaint to her existing claim was refused by the tribunal, which found the new claim was out of time and would cause greater hardship to Westminster City Council than to her.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #amendment-application
- #equal-pay
- #out-of-time
- #balance-of-hardship
- #sex-discrimination
Key facts
- The claimant applied to amend her claim to add an equal pay complaint on 10 October 2022.
- The amendment sought to add a new cause of action based on new facts regarding a pay disparity with a male comparator, Mr Bradley.
- The respondent would suffer greater hardship if the amendment were granted due to the passage of time and lack of evidence.
- The claimant's application was made after she received confirmation of the pay disparity on the same day.
- The claimant had previously raised the pay issue at a preliminary hearing on 1 September 2022.
Timeline
-
Mr Bradley's pay award
Mr Bradley was awarded performance related pay of £3072 and assimilated onto spinal point 3 of band 4 of the pay scale.
-
Claimant's appointment
The claimant was appointed on spinal point 2 of band 4.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Snelson noted the claimant's reference to a pay disparity and explained the need for an amendment application.
-
Amendment application
The claimant made a written application to amend her claim to add an equal pay complaint, on the same day she received confirmation of the pay disparity.
-
Final hearing day 1
The tribunal heard the claimant's amendment application and refused it, giving oral reasons.
-
Final hearing day 2
The tribunal gave oral decision on the amendment application.
-
Final hearing day 3
The claimant sought reconsideration of the refusal, which was also refused.
-
Written reasons sent
The tribunal sent written reasons for its decisions.
The legal issue
Whether the former employee should be allowed to amend her existing claim to add a new equal pay complaint, considering the time limits for bringing such a claim and the relative hardship to both parties.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to add an equal pay complaint.
Key reasons:
- The amendment sought to add a new cause of action based on new facts, not merely relabel existing ones.
- The new claim was substantially out of time (the pay disparity arose in 2008/2016, and the amendment was made in October 2022).
- Allowing the amendment would require a substantial new area of factual enquiry into events from 2008, for which the respondent had limited evidence and the male comparator could not give cogent evidence.
- The balance of hardship favoured the respondent: if refused, the claimant lost the chance to pursue this claim, but if granted, the respondent would face real practical difficulties in defending a stale claim.
No compensation was awarded as the amendment was refused.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you suspect an equal pay issue, act promptly – delays of more than a year from the relevant events will likely be deemed out of time.
- An amendment to add a completely new claim is much harder to obtain than a simple correction; the tribunal will weigh the hardship to both sides.
- Keep records of any pay-related concerns you raise with your employer, as early references to a disparity can be used against you if you delay making a formal claim.
- If you are representing yourself, seek advice on time limits and amendment procedures as soon as you become aware of a potential new claim.
When a new claim comes too late
This case illustrates the strict approach tribunals take when a claimant tries to add a new cause of action long after the original events. The former employee had already brought a claim against Westminster City Council, but in October 2022 she sought to add an equal pay complaint after discovering that a male colleague, Mr Bradley, had been on a higher pay point since 2008 – eight years before she was appointed. The tribunal refused the amendment, meaning the equal pay issue will not be heard.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal applied the well-known test from Selkent Bus Co v Moore and Vaughan v Modality Partnership, balancing the hardship of allowing versus refusing the amendment. Key factors were: the amendment introduced a wholly new claim based on different facts (the 2008 pay award to Mr Bradley); the claim was substantially out of time (the relevant events were in 2008 and 2016, and the amendment was made in 2022); and the respondent would suffer greater hardship because it would have to defend a stale claim with limited evidence – the male comparator could not give cogent evidence and documentary records were sparse. The tribunal noted that the claimant had suspected the disparity earlier and had been told at a preliminary hearing in September 2022 how to apply to amend, yet she waited until October to do so.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering an equal pay claim, the message is clear: time limits are strict, and delay is rarely excused. Even if you are already in tribunal proceedings, adding a new claim requires a separate application, and the tribunal will scrutinise the timing and the prejudice to the other side. If you become aware of a potential pay disparity, you should raise it formally as soon as possible – ideally within the primary time limit of six months from the last act of discrimination. Waiting until you have 'confirmation' may be too late if the underlying facts were known or suspected earlier.
Similar cases
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.
Sex discrimination amendment refused: comparing safety concerns with colleague
A former employee's attempt to add a sex discrimination claim based on how her safety concerns were handled compared to a colleague's was refused by the tribunal as out of time and lacking merit.
Claims dismissed after claimants fail to attend final hearing
Two former employees who brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and redundancy had their cases thrown out after failing to attend the final hearing or provide any evidence.
Agency worker's employment status claims dismissed: no contract with end-user
An agency worker who claimed unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and equal pay against the end-user and hirer lost all claims after the tribunal found he was not an employee of either respondent.