James Johnstone & Anor v Glasgow City Council
[2024] EAT 75
Janice Anyon & Ors v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
1 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 326 (KB)
High Court
Former government employees sued their employer for underpaying them after a job evaluation. The court mostly allowed them to add more detail to their case, but not completely new arguments. The key question is whether the employer followed proper procedures in the job evaluation, and whether important documents related to these procedures should be considered part of the employees' contracts. The case will now continue with a more detailed version of the employees' complaint.
Key Facts
- •Claimants were employed as Local Service Investigators (LSIs) by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
- •A 2015-16 job evaluation graded LSI roles as Executive Officer (EO), while a similar role (CCIISI) was upgraded to Higher Executive Officer (HEO).
- •Claimants allege the evaluation was procedurally flawed, breaching their employment contracts, leading to lower pay.
- •Claimants sought permission to amend their particulars of claim.
- •The dispute centers on the incorporation of various documents (including the confidential JEGS Handbook) into the employment contracts and the alleged breaches of contract arising from the evaluation process.
Legal Principles
Amendments to correct a genuine mistake as to a party's name are allowed if the mistake doesn't cause reasonable doubt about the party's identity.
CPR 17.4(3)
Amendments adding new claims after the limitation period have expired are allowed only if the new claim arises out of the same or substantially the same facts as existing claims.
CPR 17.4(2)
An application to amend will be refused if the proposed amendment has no real prospect of success; the test is the same as for summary judgment.
Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm)
Implied terms in employment contracts will only be implied if necessary; consideration of necessity, not reasonableness.
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] AC 294; Greenway v Johnson Matthey Plc [2017] ICR 43; Benyatov v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd [2023] ICR 534
Damages for loss of a chance are available where a claimant's loss depends on the hypothetical actions of a third party; however, the principle may extend beyond just third-party actions.
Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602; Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786; Dandara Holdings Ltd v Cooperative Retail Services Ltd [2004] EWHC 1476 (Ch)
Outcomes
Permission granted to amend the claim form to correct the defendant's name.
Genuine mistake; no reasonable doubt about the defendant's identity.
Permission granted to amend particulars of claim, with exceptions.
Proposed amendments largely provide further particulars or narrow the existing case; new claims arise from the same or substantially the same facts; no undue prejudice to the defendant.