The claimant presented an ET1 in October 2022 alleging numerous claims including a detriment for health and safety disclosures under s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996, arising from an air conditioning unit installed near his desk which damaged his health. His claim form was rather unstructured so the respondent's lawyers drafted the list of issues but left out any mention of s.44. Following a series of preliminary hearings, Employment Judge Ord refused the claimant's application to include a s.44 health and safety detriment claim, concluding it was an amendment to his claim.

Her Honour Judge Russell allowed the appeal, finding that the s.44 claim was already properly pleaded in the ET1 and its attached particulars, and therefore required no amendment. The claim was plainly asserted, as there was express reference to s.44 and the Claimant's deliberate distinction between health and safety and protected disclosure claims. She further found the claim had not been abandoned. The employment judge had erred in his amendment analysis by placing undue weight on delay whilst failing to consider that the amendment would require minimal additional factual investigation.