E Macfarlane v Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis
[2023] EAT 111
Liliana Vassallo v Mizuho International PLC & Anor
19 June 2024
[2024] EAT 170
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Someone tried to add claims to their employment lawsuit after the initial filing. The judge said no, because they had a lawyer at the time of the original filing and didn't provide enough reason for the change. The appeal court agreed because the judge's decision was fair based on the available evidence.
Key Facts
- •Liliana Vassallo appealed Employment Judge Plowright's decision refusing her application to amend her claim to include whistleblowing detriment and dismissal.
- •Vassallo's initial Claim Form omitted whistleblowing claims, though a draft version included them.
- •Vassallo argued she only learned of potential whistleblowing dismissal from the Respondent's Response.
- •The Employment Judge found that an informed decision was made not to pursue whistleblowing claims when the initial Claim Form was submitted.
- •The appeal focused on whether the EJ's findings were unsupported by evidence or based on erroneous assumptions.
Legal Principles
The Employment Tribunal's decision on amending particulars of claim is reviewed to determine if it is supported by evidence and not based on erroneous assumptions.
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A claimant is generally bound by the actions of their legal representative.
Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53
Employment Judges are not obligated to conduct an inquisitorial role; the adversarial process is the norm.
Pereira v GFT Financial Ltd [2023] EAT 124
The ET must conduct a 'balance of injustice' analysis when considering amendment applications (Vaughan v Modality Partnership cited).
Vaughan v Modality Partnership : UKEAT 0147 20 BA
The EAT's consideration of the appeal is limited to the grounds of appeal granted permission by the President.
EAT Practice Direction 2023, paragraph [3.8.5.f]
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The EAT found the EJ's decision was supported by the evidence. The EJ considered submissions, and the Claimant failed to provide evidence to counter the EJ’s findings, despite the opportunity to do so.
The EJ's refusal to allow amendment was upheld.
The EAT found the EJ had not erred in law. An informed decision not to pursue whistleblowing claims was made when the original Claim Form was submitted. The Claimant was bound by her representatives actions. The EJ correctly carried out a balance of injustice analysis. The EAT found that the Claimant's arguments were not properly within the permitted grounds of appeal.