Tamsin Sandiford acted pro bono for the Claimant in a successful amendment application in the employment tribunal.
The Claimant had brought claims of breach of contract and failure to deal with a flexible working request in a reasonable manner. She later sought to amend her claim to introduce claims of constructive unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination.
Tamsin successfully argued that the amendment sought was best characterised as a Selkent relabelling rather than constituting entirely new allegations, since both new claims were founded in the same facts as the original claims. The Respondent alleged that the Claimant had tried to mislead the tribunal as she had incorrectly stated that she had resigned since submitting her claim and that the amendment had been agreed with the Respondent. Tamsin argued that there was nothing to suggest dishonesty rather than a misunderstanding by a litigant-in-person.
Tamsin referred to the recent cases of Vaughan v Modality Partnership  ICR 535 and Chaudhry v Cerberus Service Security and Monitoring Services Ltd  EAT 172 which reiterated that the key test is the balance of prejudice and was able to persuade the Judge that the prejudice to the Claimant in refusing the application greatly outweighed any prejudice to the Respondent.
Tamsin was instructed through the Advocate scheme.
Written by Oliver Edwards