The claimant, originally a litigant in person, had first submitted a claim only against the first respondent but on learning that respondent had become insolvent applied to amend the claim and include the second respondent (he had been referred to several times in the original claim). In a brief judgment the ET, as part of a case management hearing, refused the application broadly as it had been open to amend earlier especially as the claimant was now represented and the putative second respondent would be prejudiced as a result.
Keith J, despite acknowledging the wide discretion available in case management decisions, finds the decision cannot stand largely because the judgment was not Meek compliant as it lacked any explanation of why the second respondent would be prejudiced.