Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Employment Tribunal refused the Claimant's applications to add Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Hall as respondents in her case. The applications were deemed out of time under Rule 71, and no material change in circumstances justified adding them. The case, numbered 2201744/2020, involves claims against Helicor Ltd and Helicor Consulting Ltd. The full hearing is scheduled for January 2021.
Issues
- The tribunal evaluated the balance of prejudice between the Claimant and potential new respondents, concluding that adding Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Hall would subject them to undue hardship and liability without sufficient justification.
- The Claimant sought to add Mr. Hall as a respondent for her race discrimination claim under Rule 34. The tribunal rejected this, finding no material allegations against him and no valid reason for the late application.
- The tribunal confirmed its original decision not to add Mr. Tripathi as a respondent, citing no genuine mistake or material change in circumstances to justify his inclusion, despite the Claimant's repeated applications.
- The tribunal determined that the Claimant's application for reconsideration of the 16 September decision was submitted two weeks after the deadline (Rule 71) and refused it due to lack of justification for the delay, despite considering the merits for fairness.
Holdings
- Application to amend the claim to include Mr. Hall and/or Mr. Tripathi as respondents under Rule 34 was refused due to lack of explanation for the late submission.
- The Claimant's application for reconsideration of the 16 September decision was out of time under Rule 71, and no grounds for extension were found.
- Application under Rules 29/30 to set aside orders or judgment was refused, as the Claimant had ample opportunity to present her case during the 11 September hearing.
- The original decision to refuse adding Mr. Tripathi as a respondent under Rule 70 was confirmed, with no new material facts justifying a change.
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the rules of the Employment Tribunal (ET Rules) to determine the Claimant's applications for reconsideration and amendment. Key principles included Rule 71 (time limits for reconsideration applications), Rule 5 (grounds for extending time), and Rule 34 (adding respondents). The decision emphasized adherence to procedural fairness and the balance of prejudice, citing precedents such as Cocking v Sandhurst and Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore to justify refusing the applications.
Precedent Name
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Orford v S Three Staffing UK Ltd
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010
- Employment Tribunal Rules
Judge Name
- Employment Judge Russell
- Employment Judge Pearl
Passage Text
- 17. ... Adding them into the proceedings as respondents puts them at a significant potential prejudice and the Claimant already has a claim against the First and the Second Respondent which proceeds to a full hearing.
- 1. The Claimant's application for a reconsideration of my judgement of 16 September is out of time under Rule 71 of the ET Rules and there is no ground to extend time under Rule 5 or otherwise.
- 20. ... whether the Claimant is an employee of the First or Second Respondent it was not reasonable for her to join Mr Tripathi as a party.