Thomson v East Dunbartonshire Council & Anor (Practice and Procedure : Amendment) [2014] UKEAT 0049_13_0603 (06 March 2014)
The Employment Judge correctly applied the principles from Selkent, considered all relevant circumstances, and did not err in law by using 'balance of prejudice' terminology. The refusal to allow amendment was within the judge's discretion and not perverse.
- Citation
- [2014] UKEAT 0049_13_0603
- Parties
- Appellant: James Thomson; First Respondent: East Dunbartonshire Council
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 06 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Claim
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, TUPE Transfer, Unfair Dismissal, Failure to Consult
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James Thomson
Appellant
East Dunbartonshire Council
First Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in law by refusing leave to amend the originating application to add a complaint of dismissal
- 2 Whether the exercise of discretion was flawed by applying a 'balance of prejudice' test instead of 'relative injustice and hardship'
Ratio Decidendi
The Employment Judge correctly applied the principles from Selkent, considered all relevant circumstances, and did not err in law by using 'balance of prejudice' terminology. The refusal to allow amendment was within the judge's discretion and not perverse.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- No error of law found in refusal to amend claim
- No further orders issued
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment