Miss C Jones v Product Marketing Alliance Ltd: 6011527/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6011527/2024

Between

Miss C JonesClaimant

Product Marketing Alliance LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Fowell

In person for claimant

Mrs A Sidossis (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 30 December 2025

JUDGMENT

The application for interim relief is refused.

REASONS

[1]The claimant applied to amend her claims today by adding claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation, breach of contract and wrongful dismissal. Case Number: 6011527/2024 PHCM Order 2 of 10 September 2023

[2]The respondent concedes that the breach of contract claim could be added, on a pragmatic basis. The respondent stated that the claim was “beyond a mere re-labelling as it introduced a claim for unpaid OTE and other contractual benefits”, however as it carried a longer limitation period and could be brought as a separate claim, it was in the interests of both parties that it be heard with the original claim (page 2, final paragraph, of respondent’s letter of response, sent by email on 28 July 2025). Claimant’s submissions

[3]It was submitted by the claimant that the ET/1 had been lodged without legal advice, and that the claimant had used ChatGPT and that some of the claims were not correctly identified. In May 2025 the claimant provided a revised list of issues.

[4]At a preliminary hearing on 19 May 2025 EJ Yardly dismissed the claimant’s claims of whistleblowing retaliation (under sections 47B and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996) as having no prospect of success, but allowed the section 98 ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claim and the claim in respect of reasonable adjustments under s20 EqA 2010 to remain.

[5]The claimant expanded upon the written application to amend, within the bundle of documents (57 pages). Within that document, which included a section entitled “revised ET1” in which the claimant had annotated her original claim form, the claimant repeated on numerous occasions that she was not introducing any new facts, and was simply trying to correctly label existing claims.

[6]The law was set out in the application at paragraphs 12 to 18 inclusive.

[7]The claimant went through the factors in Selkent Bus C Ltd v Moore

[1996] ICR 836

[8]It was submitted that the claimant’s application to amend was in fact a relabelling of existing allegations under new heads of claim. A table had been drafted to assist the tribunal, which the claimant relied on to show it was a relabelling exercise.

[9]It was submitted that as the claimant had been a litigant in person when drafting the ET/1, the setting out of the facts was the most important task, rather than the identifying of claims.

[10]Further, the claimant stated that the mapping table (at pages 40 onwards in the bundle) set out the original pleadings and the correct legal titles showing it is a relabelling. The respondent, it was submitted, was on notice as to the claim for whistleblowing and could have taken instructions. The facts relied on are set out in the ET/1.

[11]It was also submitted that discrimination was already pleaded in relation to ADHD.

[12]The claimant accepted that the claims were out of time, and relied upon the fact that ADHD impacts on her ability to time manage and on her task completion Case Number: 6011527/2024 PHCM Order 3 of 10 September 2023 abilities. There was pressure in respect of the application for interim relief. It was noted that a 4 day hearing has been listed, which was sufficient to determine at least liability if the amendment was allowed.

[13]It was submitted that the s47 claim changing to a direct discrimination claim is relabelling. The claimant argued that such an amendment would not add new facts or witnesses, it is simply arguing facts under different headings. It was stated that the allegations were already pleaded under the reasonable adjustments claim.

[14]The claimant stated that the respondent was aware of the factual allegations in September 2024, and could have started investigation then. It was submitted that there would be no prejudice to the respondent if the amendments were allowed.

[15]The claimant has stated that she was unable to present the claims in time as her ADHD and work-induced anxiety and depression significantly impairs her executive functioning, time management and task completion abilities.

[16]The claimant had previously set out her explanation for delay at part B, paragraph B of her application to amend (page 6 of the 57 page document). She stated that those conditions were exacerbated by her sudden dismissal and the rejection of the application for interim relief.

[17]She stated that she had submitted her claim “under severe time pressure and without legal representation in order to preserve [her] right to apply for interim relief”. She said that she “did not know it was possible to apply to re-label claims until the issue was raised during the preliminary hearing on 15 May 2025”. She said at the same time she was navigating financial hardship and had started an intensive work trial at a new job that consumed most of her time and energy.

[18]The claimant submitted that there was no prejudice to the respondent, as all relevant facts had been known to them since the service of her ET/1 and the further documents served including her response to the further and better particulars of claim, her evidence bundle, disability impact statement and draft list of issues. Response to application to amend

[19]The respondent stated that after the claim was made, the respondent sent a detailed response, asking the claimant for further and better particulars in respect of the unfair dismissal and reasonable adjustments claims.

[20]It was submitted that the respondent had made sure that the claimant was given every opportunity to detail her claims before the application for strike out was made.

[21]Prior to the hearing a revised list of issues was sent by the claimant. It was not clear to the respondent if the claimant had had legal advice in preparing that list of issues, however, today was the first time the respondent heard that the original ET/1 was drafted with ChatGPT. The respondent submitted that the Case Number: 6011527/2024 PHCM Order 4 of 10 September 2023 tribunal should disregard it, as there should be no leeway for using AI software, as there is no precedence for this.

[22]The application to amend was not served until after the list of issues, which appeared to have those amendments. The formal application of 57 pages was then sent, with a cover letter on pages 4 and 5, then a revised ET/1 with red amendments and corrections/ additions.

[23]Counsel for the respondent stated that the mapping table was difficult to follow but that it was not needed for today’s exercise. It was submitted that the tribunal needed to focus on the body of ET/1 and the particulars of claim, and then the summary (annex B – summary of relabelled claims, pages 46 to 57).

[24]The respondent stated that it was unsatisfactory after all the opportunities the claimant has had to ask for further permission to add further dates and other details, and that the respondent would object to that quite strongly.

[25]Counsel for the respondent accepted the law as put forward by claimant, stating that it was not controversial.

[26]Counsel then took the tribunal through the revised particulars of claim, with a view to consider the extent to which any new pleading involves substantial issues of new investigation.

[27]The revised particulars of claim are in the bundle from page 24 to page 35.

[28]The respondent stated that paragraph 1.5 of the revised particulars of claim was objected to, and paragraph 1.7 was opposed as is too vague, and the respondent did not know how respond to para of this nature. She is now being asked to be allowed to give further details of fit notes etc and has not.

[29]In respect of paragraph 2.1.1.1 which dealt with the unlawful dismissal claim, the respondent did not oppose that other than reference to grievance, as it was submitted that this is a new fact, it had not been pleaded before that it was motivated by grievance.

[30]The respondent submitted that the proposed amendment at paragraph 2.1.1.2 highlights the differences and the claimant is repurposing the facts relating to protected disclosures following the strike out, to say the dismissal was because of disability-related disclosures and concerns, not the whistleblowing. It was submitted that “this is a second bite of the cherry, and is well beyond relabelling”. The respondent submitted that this is the exact type of amendment the law should prevent

[31]For completeness, the respondent stated that it was unclear why paragraph 2.1.3 had been deleted, as the claim relating to reasonable adjustments remains. However, the claimant has chosen to delete it in the amended claim.

[32]The respondent stated that the rest of paragraph 2 – 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.7, 2.1.8 and 2.1.10 all summaries of claims, were objected to as per the written response. Case Number: 6011527/2024 PHCM Order 5 of 10 September 2023

[33]The respondent agreed that paragraph 2.1.6 can remain as that claim already exists.

[34]As the respondent concedes the breach of contract claim, they agreed that paragraph 2.1.9 may also remain.

[35]Similarly, paragraph 3.2.1 is within the pleadings so can remain. However, the respondent objected to paragraph 3.2.2.

[36]In respect of paragraph 2.1.9, that relates to the allegation of breach of contract and therefore the respondent agrees it can stay in, if tribunal permits the amendment.

[37]The respondent submitted that paragraph3.2.1 was simply a repeat of pleadings, so no objection was made to it, however paragraph

3.2.2 was objected to.

[38]The respondent submitted that paragraph 4 should be struck out as it is the whistleblowing claim being repurposed as a disability claim. This paragraph, entitled retaliation and hostile behaviour, raises a completely different area of enquiry if the amendments were allowed. It was submitted that the respondent had in fact responded to some of these factual allegations in detail. It is accepted that the claimant has a disability and that the claim for reasonable adjustments is proceeding.

[39]It was submitted that these proposed amendments go to the heart of the Rangemaster case. The respondent stated that it was never the claimant’s case that she suffered detriments because she disclosed her ADHD.

[40]Further, the respondent submits that this claim is prima facie out of time, which the claimant accepts. However, the respondent points out that they had not seen any evidence, such as medical information, as to why there was a delay. There had been a revised list of issues in the run up to the May hearing, but no formal application to amend as they would have expected.

[41]In respect of paragraph 5, the sham redundancy process, it was submitted that it forms the basis of the claim for unfair dismissal. The respondent stated that they were not sure if the amendments were in fact required, as they appeared to be paraphrasing what had already been pleaded.

[42]The respondent did not oppose the amendment at paragraph 6.1, which simply expands on ADHD as a condition.

[43]In respect of paragraphs 7.2 and 8.3, again it was stated that the claimant was paraphrasing sentences, relating to the same facts, and the respondent was not sure why amendments are needed.

[44]It was submitted that paragraph 9 should be struck out if any amendments are permitted as they are not points relating to a claim.

[45]Counsel for the respondent then addressed the tribunal in respect of the response document. It was submitted that this is not just a timing issue, but also Case Number: 6011527/2024 PHCM Order 6 of 10 September 2023 that the amendment goes beyond relabelling, is the repurposing of facts from whistleblowing into new claims.

[46]Further it was submitted that the claims have very little detail to them, such that the respondent has not been able to properly respond. Counsel stated that this was not satisfactory given the stage we are at, in a further preliminary hearing. It was noted that the claimant had from May to July to put in an amended particulars of claim, she is now legally represented, and now says that she might need to give more background information which could be in amended list of issues, for example dates.

[47]It was submitted that if the application was allowed today, the particulars of claim should stand as they are without any further particulars, and the respondent should simply respond to those. It was repeated that the claimant had had plenty of opportunity to provide details and the fact that these are not properly amended particulars should be a factor in considering refusing the application to amend.

[48]Counsel for the respondent again stated that the detriments were all pleaded as whistleblowing detriments, or in the claim for reasonable adjustments, and that there was no suggestion that the detriments could have related to the disability. It was submitted that they are completely new claims.

[49]The respondent stated that they had difficulties with the submission made on behalf of the claimant that if disability was raised alongside whistleblowing, it would be reasonable to assume or link a victimisation, as there was always a likelihood that the same elements of whistleblowing could amount to a potential victimisation claim, as per reasoning in Transport and General Workers union v Safeway Stores Ltd (

UKEAT/0092/07

). The issue the respondent had was that the disclosure relied upon here did not have anything to do with disability, as per paragraph 3 of the original ET/1.

Legal Framework

[50]The key authorities that I have considered are Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore

[1996] IRLR 661

, Abercrombie and others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd

[2014] ICR 209

and Vaughan v Modality Partnership

UKEAT/147/20

[51]In determining whether to grant an application to amend, the tribunal must consider all the circumstances and balance the injustice and hardship of allowing the amendment against refusing.

[52]Three of the main factors to consider are the nature of the amendment, the time limits, and the timing and manner of the application. This is not an exhaustive list.

[53]In respect of the nature of amendments, they can range from the addition of factual details to existing allegations and the addition or substitution of other labels for facts pleaded, to making factual allegations which change the basis of the claim. It is for the tribunal to decide whether the amendment is a minor matter or a substantial alteration. Case Number: 6011527/2024 PHCM Order 7 of 10 September 2023

[54]Mummery P, presiding in the EAT in the case of Selkent Bus Company Ltd distinguished three types of amendments. The first involved simple correction of clerical or typing errors. The second involves the addition or substitution of other labels for facts already pleaded. The claimant states that this is a relabelling in the current application. The third type of amendment is where there is a substantial alteration by pleading a new cause of action. The respondent submits that the claimant’s application to amend falls within that third category.

[55]In respect of the Selkent factors, they are not the only factors to consider. The tribunal must consider all the circumstances that they decide are relevant in deciding the application. There is no tick-box exercise.

[56]If the amendment sought is one of relabelling facts that are already before the Tribunal, such an amendment might be granted without much difficulty. However, as noted in the Presidential Guidance, there is a fine distinction between raising a claim which is linked to an existing claim and raising a new claim for the first time.

[57]As was stated by Mr Justice Langstaff (then President of the EAT), “the claim as set out in the ET1, is not something just to set the ball rolling, as an initial document necessary to comply with time limits but which is otherwise free to be augmented by whatever the parties choose to add or subtract merely upon their say so. Instead, it serves not only a useful but a necessary function. It is essential case. It is that to which a respondent is required to respond. A respondent is not required to answer a witness statement, nor a document, but the claims made – meaning, under the [Tribunal Rules], the claim as set out in the ET1 (Chandhok v Tirkey

2015 ICR 527

, EAT).

[58]In Vaughan, HHJ Tayler emphasised that the core test in considering applications to amend is the balance of injustice and hardship in allowing or refusing the application. The parties must make submissions on the specific practical consequences.

Findings

[59]As set out above, there are three types of amendments. The first involved simple correction of clerical or typing errors. This is not the case here.

[60]The second involves the addition or substitution of other labels for facts already pleaded. The claimant states that this is a relabelling in the current application.

[61]The third type of amendment is where there is a substantial alteration by pleading a new cause of action. The respondent submits that the claimant’s application to amend falls within that third category.

[62]I do not agree with the claimant’s submissions that this is merely a relabelling of existing claims. It is clear from the claimant’s own documents that she is seeking to repurpose her whistleblowing pleadings to bring discrimination claims. The whistleblowing claims were struck out on the ground that there was no prospect Case Number: 6011527/2024 PHCM Order 8 of 10 September 2023 of success. The original pleadings were on the basis that the detriments suffered were as a result of protected disclosures unrelated to her disability.

[63]It is in my judgment a substantial alteration. It is not a relabelling as the claimant never stated that the detriment was as a result of her disability. The pleadings relating to whistleblowing were clear: they alleged detriments as a result of disclosure wholly unrelated to disability. The protected disclosures were cited in her claim and included internal operational issues within her workplace, “including a lack of KPIs, commission scheme clarity, inadequate tools, and headcount issues”.

[64]The claim involving ADHD related to reasonable adjustments. This claim was pleaded separately from the whistleblowing claim.

[65]Within the particulars of claim, the claimant stated, at paragraph 2.1.1.2 “The Respondent’s redundancy process was a sham and pretext to remove me from the organisation after making protected disclosures (whistleblowing)”. In the revised particulars of claim at paragraph 2.1.1.2 the claimant has simply deleted the words “after making protected disclosures (whistleblowing)” and added the words “following my disability-related disclosures and concerns”.

[66]Again, at paragraph 4.1 the claimant applies to delete the words “my protected disclosures” and add “disclosing my ADHD and adjustments”. This pattern continues in the amended claim, including at paragraphs 4.1.8 and 4.1.13.

[67]The disability discrimination originally pleaded amounted to a claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments, which remains. The particulars of claim at paragraph 6, under the heading disability discrimination, set out those alleged failures. There is no mention at any stage prior to the amended particulars of less favourable treatment as a result of disability. There was no mention of any PCP placing the claimant at a disadvantage because of her disability by way of an indirect discrimination claim. In her amended claim, there is an example given at paragraph 4.1.4 in respect of “inconsistent access to priority feedback, shifting OTE expectations and disregard for support needs”, which the claimant alleges “were not applied flexibly or fairly to account for [her] disability”. This was not pleaded in her ET/1.

[68]In respect of the claims of indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation, those claims lack sufficient details. The claimant has had the opportunity to provide details, and to give reasons supported by evidence, as to why the claims are out of time. She has failed to do so.

[69]Within the amended particulars of claim (at paragraph 2.1.7), the claimant states that she was “subjected to unwanted conduct related to [her] ADHD that had the purpose or effect of violating [her]dignity or creating a hostile, degrading or offensive environment”. She added that the unwanted conduct included “dismissive or demeaning remarks and exclusion from leadership communication”.

[70]In respect of her victimisation claim (paragraph 2.1.8 of the amended particulars of claim), the claimant states that she suffered detriments after raising complaints and submitting a grievance relating to her disability and the Case Number: 6011527/2024 PHCM Order 9 of 10 September 2023 redundancy process. Further, that after she did so she experienced “detrimental treatment including further exclusion, lack of role reconsideration, and ultimately dismissal”.

[71]These new pleadings will involve substantially different areas of inquiry than the old.

[72]In my judgment, these are substantial alterations, and they are out of time. The last act in respect of the direct discrimination claim is August 2024. The application to amend the claim was made on 30 June 2025.

[73]The issue to consider therefore is whether or not the time limit should be extended under the applicable statutory provisions. The Tribunal must consider whether it would be just and equitable to extend the time limit.

[74]Applications to amend claims can be made at any time, as there are no time limits in the Rules for such applications. Any application must not be refused solely because there has been a delay in making it. The basis for the application to amend is not the discovery of new facts or information. The claimant, as I have found, has attempted to repurpose her whistleblowing claim into a discrimination claim.

[75]The claimant has stated that she was unable to present the claims in time as her ADHD and work-induced anxiety and depression significantly impairs her executive functioning, time management and task completion abilities.

[76]The claimant had set out her explanation for delay in her application to amend, as set out above.

[77]The claimant did not provide any documentary evidence in support of her submissions as to delay. She did not include, for example, a contract showing her working hours, responsibilities under her “intensive work trial” at her new job, or what action she had taken between the hearing on 15 May 2025 and the sending of the application to amend some 6 weeks later, on 30 June 2025.

[78]The claimant submitted that there was no prejudice to the respondent, as all relevant facts had been known to them since the service of her ET/1 and the further documents served including her response to the further and better particulars of claim, her evidence bundle, disability impact statement and draft list of issues.

[79]The respondent argued that if the tribunal allowed the application to amend, it would cause significant hardship to the respondent, as they would be faced with a claim of an entirely different nature and would need to carry out new factual enquiries, and amend their response.

[80]The respondent also raised the lack of evidence or other documentation supporting the reasons for the delay, from the date of claim of 12 September 2024 to this application to amend on 30 June 2025. Case Number: 6011527/2024 PHCM Order 10 of 10 September 2023

[81]The hardship and injustice test is a balancing exercise. It is inevitable that each party has highlighted a downside for them if the proposed amendment is allowed or not allowed.

[82]In my view, the injustice and hardship in allowing the application would fall to the respondent. The claimant’s argument that there would be no prejudice to the respondent as they have known the relevant facts for some time as it does not deal with the real, practical consequences of allowing the application.

[83]If the application were allowed, the claimant would need to provide further and better particulars for her claims. Without doing so, they would be unlikely to succeed as they have been pleaded without proper details including dates, and potential comparators.

[84]That would then trigger the need for the respondent to draft further grounds of resistance. This would lead to further costs and potentially further hearings.

[85]I am mindful of the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly, in particular trying to avoid delay and save expense, as far as is practicable.

[86]It would also cause delay as the introduction of new claims would increase the length of time required for the final hearing. In addition to any new evidence, the tribunal would need additional time to consider the issues and decide those claims. In my view, four days would not be sufficient, even if dealing with liability alone. I am aware that final hearings that will take five or more days are currently being listed in 2029 in London South. These are, unfortunately, the real, practical consequences of allowing the amendment.

[87]In terms of the injustice or hardship to the claimant, she is still able to pursue her original claims, together with a breach of contract claim.

[88]It is not just or equitable to extend the time in respect of the discrimination claims in this case, for the reasons set out above.

[89]Having considered the written and oral submissions made by both parties, I refuse leave to allow the claimant to amend the claim to add direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

[90]I give leave for the claimant to amend the claim to add a breach of contract claim. Approved By