Piepenbrock v London School of Economics and Political Science EA-2020-000732-BA
Appeal against a decision to refuse the Claimant's application to amend his claim. Appeal dismissed.
In this long running case, during which the ET proceedings were stayed through separate High Court proceedings, the Claimant brought claims for victimisation, discrimination arising from disability (based on the anxiety and depression) and unfair dismissal. In 2020, the Claimant sought to amend his claim by, among other things, adding 13 new respondents and introducing new claims for direct discrimination and harassment based on sex, disability, race and religion, for indirect discrimination based on disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and for personal injury. The EJ allowed some amendments but refused others. The Claimant appealed against the refusal to allow an amendment that related to the alleged grievance that he brought in 2012 and which he claimed was not investigated.
The EAT dismissed the appeal. The EAT found that the EJ had wrongly considered that these new claims added little or nothing to the existing claims but found that, even if this error had not been made by the EJ, he would properly have reached the same result and refused permission for the required amendments, given his findings that the new claims could and should have been brought at the outset and that allowing the amendments would involve significant hardship to the employer.
Published: 06/01/2022 10:20