Employment Appeal Tribunal Overturns Decision to Refuse Claim Amendment
The EAT has overturned a refusal to amend an unfair dismissal claim, ruling the initial tribunal misdirected itself on the nature of the changes.
• public
In an unusual intervention, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a decision that originally blocked a claimant from amending her unfair dismissal and detriment claim. The case of Furbacher v LB Barking & Dagenham Council serves as a significant reminder of the principles governing procedural amendments in employment law.
The Background of the Dispute
Ms Laura Furbacher, who was assigned to the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham as a Welcome and Support Officer, initially brought claims regarding protected disclosures and automatic unfair dismissal. Following the submission of the original claim, she sought to amend her case to include the termination of her agency engagement.
Employment Judge Shaw previously rejected this application. The judge argued that because Ms Furbacher had legal representation at the time, she should have been aware of the necessity to plead these matters clearly from the start. The tribunal further suggested that the requested changes amounted to entirely new factual allegations that would unfairly increase costs and hearing time for the respondent.
EAT Intervention
Deputy Judge John Bowers KC, presiding over the appeal, took a different view. He noted that the EAT typically respects the discretion of employment tribunals regarding amendments. However, he concluded that this specific instance involved a legal misdirection. The judge observed that the requested amendments were closely related to the existing pleadings and that the respondent had already been aware of the relevant factual background.
Furthermore, the EAT found that the tribunal's assessment of the balance of prejudice was flawed. It appeared that the original judge may have been attempting to penalise the claimant for the perceived errors of her previous solicitors. Given the early stage of the proceedings, the EAT determined that allowing the amendment would not cause the significant prejudice initially suggested.
Conclusion
Rather than remitting the case for a fresh hearing and causing further delay, the EAT took the rare step of allowing the amendments itself. This decision highlights the importance of courts carefully evaluating the actual impact of procedural changes rather than relying solely on the timing or past representation of the claimant.
Read the entire judgment here: Furbacher v LB Barking & Dagenham [2026] EAT 117
