Background
F worked for King’s College London under a fixed-term contract that ultimately ended on 30 June 2022. Shortly before then, acting without legal representation, he filed an employment tribunal claim containing a 26-page narrative, numerous factual allegations, and references to multiple statutory provisions and causes of action.
F later applied to amend that claim by adding a complaint under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, describing the amendment as a new legal label for facts already pleaded. The employment tribunal refused because the application did not identify the alleged detriments or otherwise sufficiently particularise the proposed claim. It subsequently rejected F’s request to reconsider that decision. F appealed both rulings.
The Court’s Holding
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed both appeals. Although an amendment may merely attach a new legal label to existing facts, the application must still identify the facts said to constitute the essential elements of the proposed complaint. F had not specified which communications were alleged to be protected disclosures or which acts by King’s were alleged to be detriments imposed because of those disclosures. His lengthy pleading and scattered references to whistleblowing, protected disclosures, victimisation, and statutory provisions did not cure that deficiency.
The EAT held that insufficient particularisation alone justified refusing the amendment and the reconsideration request, which did not supply the missing details. A tribunal may allow an applicant to clarify or particularise a deficient amendment before deciding it, but is not legally required to do so. Nor did the refusal necessarily prevent F from later making a fresh, properly particularised application. The EAT also rejected his costs application concerning preparation of the appeal bundle.
Key Takeaways
- A proposed amendment must be sufficiently clear for the tribunal to assess its case-management consequences and for the respondent to understand and defend the case.
- Simply citing statutory provisions or applying a new legal label to a lengthy factual narrative does not identify which facts support each element of the proposed claim.
- Allowing clarification before deciding a deficient amendment is an option for the tribunal, not a mandatory procedural step, even where the claimant is self-represented.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that particularisation is a threshold requirement in employment-tribunal amendment applications. The tribunal need not proceed to weigh every other amendment factor when the proposed complaint is too unclear to permit a fair assessment under the established amendment principles.
For practitioners, the judgment underscores the need to connect each proposed cause of action to identified facts—here, the particular protected disclosures and resulting detriments—rather than relying on broad incorporation of an existing narrative. It also clarifies that refusal of a defective application will not invariably bar a later, properly framed application, although delay and procedural history may then weigh against it.