The Claimant, a teaching assistant, was dismissed by the Respondents following disciplinary action for making malicious allegations against a colleague. She brought proceedings in the ET for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination; and she then sought to amend her claim to include an allegation of whistleblowing detriment. The claim did not come to the attention of the Respondents for a number of weeks, until the next meeting of the Board of Governors, by which time the ET had granted the Claimant's application to amend her claim at a preliminary hearing and had proceeded to a further hearing without notice to the Respondents. The Respondents appealed on the grounds that the ET had erred in law by not subjecting the proposed amendment to the test set out in Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836, and by listing the case for a further hearing without giving them notice.

The EAT held that the ET's decision to allow the amendment was an error of law, as the original claim form had not disclosed any whistleblowing detriment claim; also, the ET erred by listing the final hearing without notice (there is discretion to shorten the 14-day notice period but not to dispense with it entirely). Accordingly, the case would be remitted to a fresh ET (1) to determine the Claimant's application to amend her claim, and (2) if any amendment is allowed, to give directions for the filing of a form ET3 and any further directions as appropriate.