Watkins v British Broadcasting Corporation (Practice and Procedure : Amendment) [2012] UKEAT 0189_12_2009 (20 September 2012)

Watkins v British Broadcasting Corporation (Practice and Procedure : Amendment) [2012] UKEAT 0189_12_2009 (20 September 2012)

The Employment Judge's refusal to permit amendment was a discretionary decision well within her powers, properly applying the Selkent principles, and not perverse or flawed. The amendment was not minor, introduced new allegations, and the delay and prejudice to the Respondent were relevant factors. The appeal fails to meet the high threshold for overturning such discretion.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0189_12_2009
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend ET1
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Case Management, Amendment of Pleadings, Discretion, Time Limits
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Case Management Amendment of Pleadings Discretion 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend ET1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in refusing permission to amend the ET1
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment constituted a new cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Judge exercised her discretion properly

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge's refusal to permit amendment was a discretionary decision well within her powers, properly applying the Selkent principles, and not perverse or flawed. The amendment was not minor, introduced new allegations, and the delay and prejudice to the Respondent were relevant factors. The appeal fails to meet the high threshold for overturning such discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend ET1 refused
  • No variation of Employment Judge's order