Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Application to amend the claim was refused as it would be unfairly prejudicial to the respondent.
The claimant lodged a claim in August 2024 alleging, inter alia, unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, sex discrimination, failure to pay holiday pay and detriment due to public interest disclosures.
At a Case Management Preliminary Hearing in June 2025 the claimant sought to amend her claim to add:
- One further allegation of disability discrimination;
- Two further allegations of detriment relating to public interest disclosure; and
- Three further allegations of sex discrimination.
The unfair dismissal claim had already been dismissed on the basis that the claimant did not have the requisite level of continuous service. The issue for the Tribunal, at this Preliminary Hearing, was whether the amended claims should be allowed.
The Tribunal found that the applications to amend the sex discrimination claim and the public interest disclosure detriment claim were to be refused. It was found that the amendments could and should have been included in the original claim. To add at the point of the CMPH would be well outside of the statutory time limit and added little to the substance of the claims already being brought. Additionally, they would have added to the costs and the delay of the hearing of the overall case which would be prejudicial to the respondent. The claimant withdrew the claim of disability discrimination at the hearing.
The Tribunal demonstrates the considerations when determining an application to amend a claim and to add further claims. This includes the prejudice to the other party in relation to costs and delay but also looks at the substance of the overall claim. This demonstrates a strong link to the overriding objective in ensuring, not only fairness, but avoiding unnecessary delay and expense. The Tribunal also considered the statutory time limit and how it still needs to be considered otherwise amending claims could be a back-door avenue to have out of time claims.
NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial