An EJ concluded that the Claimant’s claims - which he identified as disability discrimination; and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief; and being subjected to a detriment and/or dismissed for making a protected disclosure; and for notice pay, holiday pay and other payments - had all been presented out of time and that there was no just and equitable reason to extend. The Claimant appealed on the grounds of 1) a failure to identify the issues prior to striking out the claim; 2) a failure to consider the amendment application prior to striking out the claim; 3) the time issue in that the EJ erroneously assumed that the last act relied upon by the Claimant was on 12 March 2020 and did so without considering an argument that were later dates which the claimant relied upon; 4) the EJ erred in the test applied in respect of just and equitable discretion; and 5) the EJ erred in finding that the Respondent identified by the judge as the correct Respondent was indeed the correct Respondent.

The EAT allowed the appeal on grounds 1) and 2) only because it appeared that the EJ had not appreciated that the Claimant had applied in writing to amend the claim in relation to factual matters that were set out in the original ET1 attachment. It was potentially the case that the amendment should have been allowed and if that had occurred the parameters of the case would have been significantly different impacting on the question as to whether the claim was in time. As the matter would be remitted for the ET to consider the amendment and any impact that decision might have on the time limits issue it was inappropriate for the EAT to deal with grounds 3 and 4 as this might impact on the ET’s decisions in respect of the amendment. Ground 5 was dismissed because it was a contention of perversity, the judge had evidence upon which he could reach the conclusions he did, the high threshold for a perversity argument was not reached.