Pereira v GFT Financial Ltd
Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
Neutral Citation | [2023] EAT 124 |
Year | 2023 |
Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
2023 Sept 15; Oct 6
Industrial Relations - Employment tribunal - Complaint - Claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination with all detail in attachments to claim form - Claimant later applying to add claims for automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of pregnancy and asserting statutory right - Employment judge determining that proposed amendments out of time and unjust to allow extension to highly educated claimant - Tribunal refusing application for reconsideration without referring to medical evidence attesting to claimant’s inability to present original claim clearly - Proper application of “interests of justice” test - Whether claims “new” - Proper approach to medical evidence -
The claimant was dismissed after five months’ employment as a senior data scientist on the stated grounds of her performance and skill set. Her dismissal came after she had raised a grievance and told the respondent that she was pregnant. She presented a claim by way of an ET1, ticking the boxes for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination but not pregnancy or maternity discrimination. She included no further details in the form, instead providing her grounds of complaint and various supporting documents as attachments. The attachments made reference to her pregnancy and mental health conditions. After the employment tribunal had written to the claimant requiring reasons why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out for lack of two years’ qualifying service, the claimant applied to add claims for automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of her pregnancy and for asserting a statutory right. Prior to the preliminary hearing the claimant provided further particulars of her claims, setting out all her complaints and providing further facts in support of the pregnancy dismissal claim. At the preliminary hearing, at which the judge heard evidence from the claimant but did not have, and was not referred to, the grounds of complaint document or the attachments, the tribunal found that the proposed amendments had not been raised before, were out of time, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time as a highly educated woman was able to research the claims and did not need assistance in bringing them in time. The claimant applied for...
To continue reading
Request your trial