Mohammed Ayub v Ministry of Defence
[2024] EAT 93
O Rahman v Ford Retail Limited t/a Trustford
1 February 2023
[2023] EAT 55
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Mr Rahman claimed racism at work. He later wanted to add a claim that he was punished for complaining about racism. The judge didn't properly consider his second claim, so a higher court sent it back to be looked at again.
Key Facts
- •Mr Rahman brought a claim for direct race discrimination against Ford Retail Ltd.
- •He initially acted as a litigant in person, later obtaining legal representation.
- •He submitted a further information document containing new matters, including potential victimisation claims.
- •He subsequently applied to amend his claim to include victimisation claims, based on the further information document.
- •The Employment Tribunal refused permission to amend.
- •Mr Rahman appealed this decision to the EAT.
Legal Principles
Permission to amend a claim is required if new claims or allegations are added.
Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
When deciding whether to grant permission to amend, the Tribunal must weigh up relevant factors, including prejudice to either party, and the overriding objective.
Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
The Tribunal must consider whether the further information document contained factual allegations supporting the victimisation claim, even if not explicitly labeled as such.
Outcomes
The EAT found the Employment Tribunal erred by failing to consider whether the further information document contained factual allegations supporting the victimisation claim.
The EAT held that the Tribunal should have considered whether the document contained sufficient information to show Mr Rahman had performed protected acts before his victimisation claim.
The case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal to reconsider the application to amend.
The EAT found that the further information document did contain sufficient information to support the victimisation claim, and the Tribunal should have addressed that in its original decision. The EAT clarified that granting permission to amend is not automatic even with sufficient information in the further information document.
The EAT directed the Tribunal to disregard the outcome of the full merits hearing on the direct discrimination claims when reconsidering the amendment application.
To avoid prejudicing the victimisation claim.