The Claimant made complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful race discrimination but did not mention on his ET1 that he had made protected disclosures despite having apparently considered he might have been subjected to detriment and subsequently dismissed for making them. His application to amend his claim form was rejected, the ET identifying that the amendment raised new causes of action and new issues, specifically as to whether the Claimant had made any protected disclosures, whether any disclosures were in the public interest and whether he had reasonably believed there was a breach of a legal obligation. These questions would require the Respondent to adduce significant further evidence and the ET concluded the balance of prejudice meant it should refuse the application. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had permissibly considered the application to amend was to include a new cause of action and concluded that the balance of prejudice meant the application should be refused. The Claimant had not met the high test to show that was a perverse conclusion.