The claimant, a litigant in person, had been employed on a fixed-term contract until June 2022, but subsequently alleged victimisation and filed a 26-page narrative claim. Weeks later he applied to amend the claim to put forward protected disclosure claims using the same facts. The ET refused the application as it lacked detail, such as the detriments alleged, and rejected reconsideration though two further claims followed.

HHJ Auerbach dismissed the appeals. The tribunal’s failure to cite authority was not itself an error, and it was entitled to refuse an amendment lacking sufficient particulars: the application did not identify which alleged communications were protected disclosures, nor which treatment amounted to detriment, and the original claim was unclear. Also the ET has discretion to allow clarification before deciding, but is not obliged to.