Cuthbert v Voscuris Limited (Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Unfair Dismissal Other) [2019] NIIT 05346_18IT (08 March 2019)

Cuthbert v Voscuris Limited (Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Unfair Dismissal Other) [2019] NIIT 05346_18IT (08 March 2019)

The tribunal held that only those amendments which constituted particularisation or clarification of existing claims were permitted. Proposed amendments introducing new factual allegations, especially regarding whistleblowing and detriment, were refused as they amounted to new claims, were out of time, and the claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to include them in the original claim. The tribunal exercised its discretion against allowing such amendments, applying the principles from Selkent and related authorities.

Citation
[2019] NIIT 05346_18IT
Parties
Claimant: Thomas Andrew Cuthbert; Respondent: Voscuris Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
08 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal (northern Ireland) / Pre Hearing Review on Application to Amend Claim
Outcome
Application to amend claim allowed in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Claim, Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Breach of Contract, Unauthorised Deduction of Wages, Whistleblowing
Employment Law Amendment of Claim Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Whistleblowing

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Andrew Cuthbert

Claimant

Voscuris Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal (northern Ireland) / Pre Hearing Review on Application to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his claim to include additional allegations and claims, including whistleblowing and detriment claims
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments constitute a relabelling/particularisation of existing claims or amount to new claims requiring consideration of statutory time limits
  3. 3 Whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to include the new claims in the original claim form

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that only those amendments which constituted particularisation or clarification of existing claims were permitted. Proposed amendments introducing new factual allegations, especially regarding whistleblowing and detriment, were refused as they amounted to new claims, were out of time, and the claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to include them in the original claim. The tribunal exercised its discretion against allowing such amendments, applying the principles from Selkent and related authorities.

Court Disposition

Application to amend claim allowed in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Amendments allowed only to the extent of particularisation or clarification of existing claims as specified in the decision.
  • Amendments introducing new claims, including whistleblowing and detriment, refused.