Claire Jeffcoat v Hudson Business Centres Ltd

Employment Tribunal pleadings must be read fairly and in their full context. A claim may be apparent from the pleaded facts even where it is expressed tentatively or imprecisely. Where the pleadings already disclose a claim, the claimant does not need an amendment merely to relabel it. In disability discrimination proceedings, allegations may support both direct discrimination under Equality Act 2010, section 13, and discrimination arising from disability under section 15. An Employment Tribunal errs in law if it fails to analyse the pleadings and instead relies on a representative’s inability to identify the relevant averments. Where the error leaves only one possible outcome, the Employment Appeal Tribunal may substitute its own decision and remit the case for further procedure.

The claimant, a former receptionist, brought various claims including disability discrimination arising from her dyslexia. Her paper apart alleged that the managing director had concerns about her dyslexia and had contrived to terminate her employment. The Employment Tribunal recognised a claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, but concluded that no pleaded facts could be relabelled as direct discrimination and refused the claimant’s application to relabel or amend her claim.

The claimant appealed against that case-management decision. The central issue was whether, on a fair reading of the pleadings and the surrounding circumstances, the paper apart already contained a claim under section 13 as well as section 15.

1. The appeal was allowed. The claimant’s paper apart, read fairly and in context, was capable of supporting a claim for direct disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, as well as the recognised claim under section 15.
2. The first sentence of paragraph F alleged that the managing director harboured concerns about the claimant’s dyslexia. In the context of a disability discrimination claim, that was capable of meaning that she had been treated less favourably because of her disability. The tentative form of the allegation did not prevent it from constituting a pleaded claim.
3. Following Cox v Adeco & Others UKEAT/0339/19/AT, the Employment Tribunal was required to analyse the pleadings and relevant core documents carefully. The fact that the claimant was assisted by a lay representative, and that the representative did not identify the relevant averments when asked, did not relieve the Tribunal of that responsibility.
4. It was an error to treat amendment as necessary to introduce a claim already extant on the face of the pleadings. The appeal was not concerned with introducing a new cause of action, but with recognising the proper scope of the existing claim.
5. Applying Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] EWCA Civ 449, this was a case in which the identified error left only one possible outcome. The EAT therefore substituted its own decision: paragraph F supported claims under both sections 13 and 15. No amendment was required for the section 13 claim.
6. The matter was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for further procedure and case management. The EAT declined to prescribe an order for further and better particulars, as that remained properly within the Tribunal’s province.

• Employment Tribunal: By a case-management decision and orders dated 14 February 2022, the Tribunal refused the claimant’s application to relabel or amend the pleadings to include direct disability discrimination.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The appeal was allowed. The EAT held that the existing pleadings supported a section 13 claim, substituted its own decision, and remitted the case to the Employment Tribunal for further procedure.