Elly Zhang v Heliocor Ltd & Anor

Elly Zhang v Heliocor Ltd & Anor

The tribunal erred by failing to distinguish between voluntary particulars of existing claims and wholly new claims in the amendment application, and by not separately considering whether to add Mr Tripathi as a respondent to the original claims. This error affected the exercise of discretion and the outcome. The matter must be remitted for proper consideration of whether Mr Tripathi should be added as a respondent to the claims as pleaded in the original claim form, after any necessary particularisation.

Parties
Appellant: Ms Elly Zhang; First Respondent: Heliocor Ltd; Second Respondent: Heliocor Consulting Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Decisions on Amendment and Joinder of Respondent
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation, Case Management Discretion
Employment Law Discrimination Law Amendment of Pleadings Joinder of Parties Race Discrimination Sex Discrimination Harassment Victimisation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Elly Zhang

Appellant

Heliocor Ltd

First Respondent

Heliocor Consulting Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Decisions on Amendment and Joinder of Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal erred in refusing to add Mr Tripathi as a respondent to the original claim
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to distinguish between voluntary particulars and new claims in the amendment application
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal properly applied the balance of prejudice test in amendment applications

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal erred by failing to distinguish between voluntary particulars of existing claims and wholly new claims in the amendment application, and by not separately considering whether to add Mr Tripathi as a respondent to the original claims. This error affected the exercise of discretion and the outcome. The matter must be remitted for proper consideration of whether Mr Tripathi should be added as a respondent to the claims as pleaded in the original claim form, after any necessary particularisation.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the employment tribunal to consider afresh whether Mr Tripathi should be added as a respondent to the complaints as they stand in the claim form.
  • Tribunal to consider whether any particularisation of those complaints should take place prior to such determination.