London Borough of Ealing and Ors v Pauline Peace

When identifying complaints at a case-management hearing, an Employment Tribunal must distinguish clarification of existing pleadings from the introduction of new complaints. If the exercise amounts to an amendment, the Tribunal must apply the amendment principles and balance the injustice or hardship of allowing it against the injustice or hardship of refusing it.

It should consider the nature of each amendment, applicable time limits, and the timing and manner of the application. A list of issues ordinarily summarises the pleadings and cannot extend them without amendment. Amendments should generally be considered separately, or in groups raising the same considerations.

The claimant brought Employment Tribunal proceedings alleging constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination, breach of contract, unlawful deductions from wages and other complaints. Her claim form contained a brief narrative, followed by a wide list of proposed complaints. She later provided additional particulars.

At a preliminary hearing, the Employment Judge treated the original claim form and additional particulars as covering all matters in the list of issues. The respondents appealed, arguing that some matters were new complaints requiring amendment. The claimant cross-appealed against any removal of matters from the list. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had lawfully dealt with the alleged amendments.

1. Appeal allowed; matter remitted. The Employment Tribunal’s analysis was inadequate. It concluded that the respondents would suffer no prejudice because they had advance notice of the additional particulars and time to respond, but it did not identify which matters were new complaints or apply the proper amendment principles.
2. The claim form contains the complaints. An Employment Tribunal must clarify the complaints and defences pleaded, but must not treat later documents as enlarging the claim without amendment. A list of issues is generally a case-management tool which summarises existing pleadings. It cannot extend the issues beyond the pleadings without an amendment.
3. Where a list of issues is used to clarify muddled pleadings, it may be added to the pleadings by amendment. The Tribunal must then apply the principles governing amendments. For each challenged allegation, it should identify whether it appeared in the claim form, whether it appeared only in later particulars or was raised orally, the nature of the amendment, the reason for its timing, any applicable time limit, and the balance of injustice or hardship if it is allowed or refused.
4. The balance of relative injustice and hardship is the fundamental consideration. The relevant principles derive from Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd [1974] ICR 650 and Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836. The overriding objective must also be kept in mind.
5. The case was remitted to a different Employment Judge. The claimant was directed to focus on the core complaints and to address the amendment issues clearly. The Tribunal was also invited to scrutinise complaints which appeared unworkable, including indirect discrimination and discrimination arising from disability.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal allowed against the case-management order of Tribunal Judge Plowright dated 22 April 2025. The matter was remitted to a different Employment Judge for reconsideration.