Mechkarov v Citibank, NA (Practice and Procedure) [2017] UKEAT 0119_17_1506 (15 June 2017)

Mechkarov v Citibank, NA (Practice and Procedure) [2017] UKEAT 0119_17_1506 (15 June 2017)

The ET1 claim form, even when read generously, did not include a claim of public interest disclosure detriment because it failed to identify protected disclosures, detriment suffered as a result, or the necessary linkage. The application to amend was properly refused as it sought to introduce a new cause of action, was out of time, and would cause significant prejudice to the Respondent.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0119_17_1506
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Georgi Mechkarov; Respondent: Citibank NA
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal and Rule 3(10) Application / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Decisions; Application for Permission to Amend Claim
Outcome
Appeal and Rule 3(10) application dismissed
Legal Topics
Practice and Procedure, Amendment of Claim, Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing), Victimisation, Discrimination, Time Limits
Employment Law Labour Law Practice and Procedure Amendment of Claim Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing) Victimisation Discrimination Time Limits

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Georgi Mechkarov

Appellant/claimant

Citibank NA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal and Rule 3(10) Application / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Decisions; Application for Permission to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ET1 claim form included a claim of public interest disclosure detriment (whistleblowing)
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge erred in refusing permission to amend the claim to include a whistleblowing detriment claim
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to amend was a proper exercise of discretion given time limits and prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The ET1 claim form, even when read generously, did not include a claim of public interest disclosure detriment because it failed to identify protected disclosures, detriment suffered as a result, or the necessary linkage. The application to amend was properly refused as it sought to introduce a new cause of action, was out of time, and would cause significant prejudice to the Respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal and Rule 3(10) application dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the Employment Judge's decision that the ET1 did not include a whistleblowing detriment claim is dismissed.
  • The application for permission to amend the claim to include a whistleblowing detriment claim is refused.