Oliphant v Boots Management Services Ltd (Practice and Procedure : Amendment) [2013] UKEAT 0005_13_1906 (19 June 2013)

Oliphant v Boots Management Services Ltd (Practice and Procedure : Amendment) [2013] UKEAT 0005_13_1906 (19 June 2013)

The Employment Judge did not err in law by refusing to allow amendment to include new claims, as the further and better particulars constituted new claims not referred to in the original ET1, were time-barred, and no explanation for their late introduction was provided. The judge exercised discretion properly and gave reasons for the decision.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0005_13_1906
Parties
Claimant: Ms Oliphant; Respondent: Boots Management Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Amendment of Pleadings, Time Bar, Victimisation, Harassment, Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination
Employment Law Equality Law Protected Disclosure Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Amendment of Pleadings Time Bar Victimisation +3 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Oliphant

Claimant

Boots Management Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by refusing amendment to include new claims in the pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the new claims were time-barred
  3. 3 Whether the further and better particulars constituted new claims or mere clarification of existing claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge did not err in law by refusing to allow amendment to include new claims, as the further and better particulars constituted new claims not referred to in the original ET1, were time-barred, and no explanation for their late introduction was provided. The judge exercised discretion properly and gave reasons for the decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • The Claimant can proceed to a full hearing on the matters raised in her ET1 only.