The Claimants, husband and wife, were foster carers employed by the respondents. Following, and in connection with, their care of a particular child, the Claimants brought materially identical claims against the respondents arising out of, amongst other things, unlawful detriment suffered on account of making disclosures and/or health & safety concerns, contrary to sections 44 and 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. After significant procedure in the claims, the claims called before an Employment Judge on the question of whether proposed amendments by the Claimants should be allowed. Having heard parties, the Employment Judge allowed some of the proposed amendments and refused others. The Claimants appealed that decision in respect of a limited number of refused proposed amendments. The Claimants appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The decision whether to allow amendment, whether in whole or in part, was a matter of judicial discretion. In the exercise of that discretion the Employment Judge had correctly identified and applied the appropriate legal test, had not taken into consideration any irrelevant considerations nor failed to take into account any relevant considerations and had reached a conclusion, in all the circumstances, that was open to them.