Mr L Galilee v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Hand |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0207/16/RN |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Practice,Procedure,Procedure - Amendment,Procedure - Case Management,Not landmark |
| Date | 22 November 2017 |
| Published date | 22 November 2017 |
Copyright 2017
Appeal No. UKEAT/0207/16/RN
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 9 January 2017
Judgment handed down on 22 November 2017
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAND QC
(SITTING ALONE)
MR L GALILEE APPELLANT
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0207/16/RN
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MS BETSAN CRIDDLE
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Pattinson & Brewer
4th Floor
11 Pilgrim Street
London
EC4V 6RN
For the Respondent MR JESSE CROZIER
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Clyde & Co LLP
Chancery Place
50 Brown Street
Manchester
M2 2JT
UKEAT/0207/16/RN
SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Case management
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Amendment
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Time limits
Neither the procedural common law doctrine of “relation back” (now defunct - see Beecham
Group plc v Norton Healthcare Ltd [1997] FSR 81, Liff v Peasley [1980] 1 WLR 781 and
Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] AC 189) nor section 35(1) of the Limitation Act
1980 apply directly to amendments to pleadings in the ET, which introduce new claims or
causes of action. These take effect for the purposes of limitation at the time permission to
amend is given and do not “relate back” to the time when the original proceedings were
commenced and in so far as the reasoning in the cases of Rawson v Doncaster NHS Primary
Care Trust UKEAT/0022/08, Newsquest (Herald and Times) Ltd v Keeping UKEATS/
0051/09 and Amey Services Ltd and Another v Aldridge and Others UKEATS/0007/16 is
based on the “relation back” doctrine, this is inconsistent with statements in Potter and Others
v North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and Others (No 2) UKEAT/0385/08, [2009]
IRLR 900 and Prest v Mouchel Business Services Ltd UKEAT/0604/10, [2011] ICR 1345.
Alternatively, Rawson, Newsquest and Amey Services were wrongly decided (on that point).
On either basis they would not be followed (see Lock and Another v British Gas Trading
Ltd (No 2) UKEAT/0189/15, [2016] IRLR 316).
The refusal of permission to amend in the instant case turned on the doctrine of “relation back”
and this was a critical error of law and not simply one of a number of factors considered in “the
generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible” (Gayle v Sandwell and
West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] IRLR 810, Kuznetsov v Royal Bank of
Scotland [2017] EWCA Civ 43, Broughton v Kop Football (Cayman) Ltd and Others
To continue reading
Request your trial