K Ciochon v Mark Kempe t/a Neville Arms & Neville Arms Inn
[2024] EAT 48
Dr Glaucia Pereira v GFT Financial Limited
6 October 2023
[2023] EAT 124
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A woman was fired shortly after telling her employer she was pregnant. She tried to add this to her unfair dismissal claim, but the Employment Tribunal refused because they said she should have done it sooner. The higher court ruled the Tribunal ignored important medical evidence showing she was struggling with her mental health and therefore didn't deliberately miss adding the pregnancy claim. The case is now going back to the Tribunal to be looked at again.
Key Facts
- •Glaucia Pereira, a Senior Data Scientist, was dismissed by GFT Financial Ltd in November 2018 after 5 months during her probationary period.
- •Pereira filed an ET1 claim on 20 December 2018 for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, but not pregnancy discrimination.
- •She submitted attachments detailing alleged bullying, harassment, and isolation, referencing her pregnancy and mental health condition.
- •Pereira subsequently applied to amend her claim to include pregnancy discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal, which was refused by the ET.
- •The ET's refusal was based on the amendments being out of time and the Claimant's purported ability to research her rights.
- •Pereira applied for reconsideration, providing medical evidence of anxiety and depression impacting her cognitive abilities during the initial claim.
- •The ET's reconsideration was delayed due to administrative errors.
- •The ET, upon finally reviewing the reconsideration, again refused, failing to consider the submitted medical evidence.
- •Pereira appealed to the EAT.
Legal Principles
Power to reconsider a judgment in the interests of justice.
Rule 70, Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
Reconsideration should be exercised with caution, considering finality of litigation; generally appropriate where a party was denied a fair opportunity to present their case.
Ministry of Justice v Burton [2016] ICR 1128, Ebury Partners UK v Davis [2023] IRLR 486
When considering amendments, ET must balance injustice of allowing vs refusing, considering all circumstances.
Selkent Bus Co v Moore [1996] ICR 836
In assessing amendments, analyze the substance of the original pleading and compare it to the amendment to determine if it raises new legal or factual allegations.
Evershed v New Star Asset Management [2010] EWCA Civ 870
New evidence admissible if it would have an important bearing on the result and it's in the interests of justice.
Wileman v Minilec Engineering Ltd [1988] ICR 318
Mental ill-health contributing to a failure to comply with a time limit is an important consideration in deciding whether an extension should be granted.
J v K [2019] IRLR 723
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The ET erred in failing to consider the balance of prejudice between the parties, the substance of the original claim (including attachments), and the medical evidence regarding the Claimant's mental health affecting her ability to file a timely and complete claim. The ET impermissibly excluded relevant matters and made its own medical assessment without proper consideration of submitted medical evidence.
Remitted to a fresh ET.
The case is remitted to a fresh ET to determine whether a reconsideration hearing is necessary and whether the original judgment should be affirmed, varied, or revoked. The EAT found that the only reasonable conclusion is that the pregnancy-related claim was already substantially included in the original filing.