Matovu v The Chambers of Mr Martin Porter KC & Ors (Practice and Procedure) [2026] EAT 36 (05 March 2026)

Matovu v The Chambers of Mr Martin Porter KC & Ors (Practice and Procedure) [2026] EAT 36 (05 March 2026)

The Employment Judge wrongly exercised discretion by refusing the claimant's application to amend paragraph 32 and the RFI on grounds not argued by the respondents and unsupported by the facts, and cumulatively, the conduct amounted to apparent bias.

Citation
[2026] EAT 36
Parties
Appellant: Mr Daniel Matovu; Respondents: The Chambers of Mr Martin Porter KC, 2 Temple Gardens and Others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Case Management Orders in Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed on both grounds (case management error and apparent bias)
Legal Topics
Case Management, Amendment of Pleadings, Apparent Bias, Victimisation, Race Discrimination, Requests for Further Information
Employment Law Civil Procedure Case Management Amendment of Pleadings Apparent Bias Victimisation Race Discrimination Requests for Further Information

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Daniel Matovu

Appellant

The Chambers of Mr Martin Porter KC, 2 Temple Gardens and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Case Management Orders in Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in refusing the claimant's application to amend his Particulars of Claim (paragraph 32)
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge erred in refusing the claimant's Request for Further Information (RFI)
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Judge's conduct amounted to apparent or actual bias

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge wrongly exercised discretion by refusing the claimant's application to amend paragraph 32 and the RFI on grounds not argued by the respondents and unsupported by the facts, and cumulatively, the conduct amounted to apparent bias.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on both grounds (case management error and apparent bias)

Orders

  • Employment Judge Hodgson is not to be involved in the claimant's case for as long as the claim is pursued in the Employment Tribunal.
  • The claimant's applications to amend paragraph 32 and for further information are to be reconsidered.