Mrs M Lipkowska v Amazon UK Services Ltd: 3307468/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3307468/2023
Between
Mrs M LipkowskaClaimantAmazon UK Services LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge AlliottIn person for claimantMr Paul Sangha (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 11 July 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant is granted permission to amend the list of issues to include section III of the application dated 17 March 2025, items 1-15 of the list of reasonable adjustments.[2]The rest of the application to amend dated 17 March 2025 is refused.
REASONS
[2]The claimant ticked the disability discrimination box, and the attached documents specifically raise an allegation of failure to make reasonable adjustments. It was unclear if any other claims were made.[3]Case management orders were made on 13 October 2023 to provide details of Case Number: 3307468/2023 2 the claimant’s disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments claims at a CMPH listed for 6 December 2023.[4]The claimant produced a document titled “Application to Amend” dated 4 December 2023. As noted by Employment Judge Bansal it did not add any new
claims.
[5]The CMPH was heard by EJ Bansal. Although the claimant had produced a 35 page impact statement which was said to include the requested information, Employment Judge Bansal recorded that it did not. The claimant was ordered to provide details of any direct discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustment claims by 16 February 2024.[6]The claimant produced a 46-page document dated 16 February 2024. This runs to 158 paragraphs.[7]A second CMPH took place before EJ Bansal on 7 March 2024. The following is recorded in his case summary. “8. The claimant, in compliance to the order made at the preliminary hearing held on 6 December 2023 provided a very detailed “Particulars of Claim” document of 46 pages. This document contains the claimant’s medical history and detailed history of her employment and issues with the respondent and the failure to make reasonable adjustments. The claimant explains she wrote the particulars of claim in Polish and had this translated into English. Both EJ Bansal and Mr Sangha found it difficult to extract the required information in response to the questions asked of the claimant in the order. Accordingly, to progress with this hearing, EJ Bansal considered it appropriate to assist the claimant to formulate her claim by having a discussion to understand the complaints and based on the replies to prepare an agreed list of issues for the final hearing. Mr Sangha agreed with this approach.[9]EJ Bansal explained to the claimant the types of complaint she could bring, (ie section 13; section 15; sections 20 & 21; section 26 & section 27) and helped the claimant to understand these. In discussion the claimant was clear and unequivocal that her complaint was limited to a failure to make reasonable adjustments to her work. She confirmed she was not making complaints of direct, indirect or discrimination arising from disability, or victimisation and harassment. In her own words the claimant said, which was consistent to the contents of the particulars of claim, that her claim was about long term disability. She pointed out that the respondent’s Health & Safety Policy stipulates “If a worker is affected by ill-health there should be reasonable adjustments made. The respondent has not done this for her. In her view this is discrimination. On the basis of the discussions held, the complaints and issues to be determined at the final hearing were identified and agreed as set out below”[10]The issues consist solely of a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim.[11]The claimant produced a nine-page application to amend dated 21 August 2024. This was said to expand the claim with direct discrimination, made complaints about the formal health reviews and sought to extend the claim back to 2017.[12]A third CMPH took place before Employment Judge Cowen on 10 September Case Number: 3307468/2023 3 2024. The case summary records:- “42 Today’s hearing was listed to consider the claimant’s application dated 21 Au- gust 2024 to amend her claim to add what she described as direct discrimina- tion and to extend her claim back to 2017. Having read her application, it was not clear to me what specific allegations of direct discrimination were being al- leged. When asked to explain this, the Claimant said that she was unsure whether what she was seeking to add was direct discrimination, but that the Re- spondent had failed to acknowledge her disability and had failed to take any steps to help her other than offer her a month of gradual return to work each time she was absent. The Claimant felt that this was not enough.[43]I gave the Claimant time to have the interpreter read to her the reasonable ad- justments claim in the list of issues compiled by EJ Bansal in the hearing on 7 March 2024 and asked her to identify any additional claims she wanted to add. She was able to outline 2 further specific occasions where reasonable adjust- ments were not made. The Respondent had no objection to these being added to the list of issues, subject to the application of time limits.[44]I therefore dismiss her application to amend her claim in respect of direct dis- crimination, but have added two further acts of failure to make reasonable ad- justments.”[45]The claimant has produced a 10-page application to amend dated 17 March 2025.[46]This public preliminary hearing was ordered on 30 April 2025 to decide on the claimant’s application to amend.
The law
[47]As per the IDS Handbook, ET Practice and Procedure at 9.24: “In determining whether to grant an application to amend and Employment Tribunal must always carry out a careful balancing exercise of all the relevant factors, having regard to the interest of justice and to the relative hardship that would be caused to the parties by granting or refusing the amendment: Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore.”[48]Relevant factors include the nature of the amendment, the applicability of time limits, and the timing and manner of the application.[49]Further, as per 9.25: “In Vaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] ICR 535, ETA, His Honour Judge James Taylor emphasised that the core test in considering applications to amend is the balance of injustice and hardship in allowing or refusing the application.” The nature of the amendment[50]The amendment application is in four sections.[51]Section 1 in pages 3-8 of the application the claimant seeks to introduce a claim of section 15 disability discrimination and sets out 56 instances of alleged unfavourable treatment. The “something arising” in consequence of her disability Case Number: 3307468/2023 4 is not identified. Without being definitive it appears to me that the something arising would be, in essence, the claimant’s need for reasonable adjustments.[52]53 of the alleged instances of unfavourable treatment have been taken from the 46-page document that was before EJ Bansal when he first formulated the agreed list of issues. At that hearing the claimant was clear that she was not making a section 15 claim. The extra three items of alleged unfavourable treatment are actually complaints of a continuing failure to make reasonable adjustments and will be covered in the claim as already formulated.[53]Section II seeks to widen the discrimination timeframe back to 2017. That was before EJ Cowen who dismissed that aspect of the previous application to amend.[54]Section III seeks to add 15 more suggested reasonable adjustments to the list of issues. It is for the claimant to identify the nature of the adjustment that would ameliorate the substantial disadvantage and it is obviously helpful to have them identified so that the respondent can prepare accordingly.[55]Section IV references breach of the respondent’s Health & Safety Health Policy which was outlined in the 46-page document and the claimant’s second application to amend which was dismissed by EJ Cowen. Time limits[56]As far as time limits are concern, the last three proposed section 15 alleged unfavourable treatment postdate the claim form. The first two are allegations of a failure to hold welfare meetings and offer reasonable adjustments. The last is a meeting on 24 February 2025 with no reasonable adjustments offered. The last alleged unfavourable treatment was within three months of the application to amend. The alleged breach of the company’s health policy is undated. However, the overwhelming majority of the proposed amendments are well in excess of three months prior to the application to amend. The timing and manner of the application[57]The application has been made one year nine months after the presentation of the claim and after three preliminary hearings.[58]The hearing of this case is in June 2026. As such, there is time to prepare.[59]However, many procedural steps have already taken place and would have to be repeated if the amendments were allowed.(i) The respondent has already amended its response twice.(ii) Disclosure has taken place.(iii) The time issue has already been dealt with, but further time issues may arise.[60]Further, Mr Sangha submits that the amendments would entail more evidence Case Number: 3307468/2023 5 being required which could jeopardise the existing listing of this hearing as being inadequate and, if it had to be relisted, it would be moved to after October 2027 which would be in no one’s interests.[61]The application as regards sections I, II and IV are seeking to re-argue issues that have already been before two Employment Judges on 7 March 2024 and 10 September 2024, and either been omitted due to agreement or dismissed. The three extra alleged unfavourable treatments do not, in my judgment, add anything to the existing failure to make reasonable adjustments claim.[62]I have to balance hardship. Quite apart from the fact the issues in sections I, II and IV have already been decided, in my judgment, adding 56 allegations of alleged unfavourable treatment going back to August 2018, would add a significant and unnecessary level of complexity and cost to this case. Most of the complaints are, in reality, a failure to make reasonable adjustments which this case is already about. In my judgment, there would be little hardship to the claimant in not having the section 15 disability discrimination claim added. It is already essentially covered in the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim.[63]In my judgment, the balance of hardship comes down in favour of excluding the proposed amendments in sections I, II and IV.[64]As far as section 3 is concern, this is only to include more suggested reasonable adjustments. Strictly speaking, I do not think that these need to be pleaded but it makes sense to include them in the list of issues and, to that extent, I allow the application to amend as the balance of hardship falls in favour of the claimant. CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS Made pursuant to the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure[1]File of documents1.1 By 4 July 2025 the claimant and the respondent must agree which documents are going to be used at the hearing.1.2 The respondent must prepare a file of those documents with an index and page numbers. They must send a copy to the claimant by 18 July 2025.[2]Witness statements2.1 The claimant and the respondent must prepare witness statements for use at the hearing. Everybody who is going to be a witness at the hearing, including he claimant, needs a witness statement.2.2 The claimant and the respondent must send each other copies of all their witness statements by 10 October 2025. Case Number: 3307468/2023 6 Approved by: