Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Refusal to Amend Claim Due to Lack of Detail
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal, confirming that tribunals may reject amendment applications that fail to provide necessary factual particulars.
• public
Tribunal Clarifies Rules on Amending Claims
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has reinforced the importance of clear and precise legal pleadings in a recent judgment, F v King’s College London [2026] EAT 146. His Honour Judge Auerbach dismissed an appeal concerning the refusal of an employment tribunal to allow a claimant to amend their claim.
The case centred on whether the original tribunal erred in refusing the claimant's application to add a new legal claim, specifically under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal had rejected the application because it lacked sufficient detail regarding the alleged detriment and failed to link specific factual matters to the new legal label.
Key Legal Findings
In his judgment, Judge Auerbach emphasised that while tribunals should make allowances for litigants in person, this does not absolve a party from the responsibility of clearly setting out their case. The ruling confirmed two significant points regarding tribunal procedure:
- A tribunal is entitled to refuse an application to amend if it is not sufficiently particularised to enable the respondent to defend the claim and the tribunal to identify the issues.
- There is no legal obligation for a tribunal to provide a claimant with an opportunity to clarify or fix a defective amendment application before refusing it. While this remains an option, the decision to do so lies within the tribunal's case management discretion.
The EAT noted that the claimant's initial documents were excessively dense and adopted a scattergun approach, making it difficult to discern the essential factual elements of the complaint. The judge concluded that the tribunal acted correctly in refusing the application on the basis that it was deficient.
Conclusion on Procedural Fairness
The judgment serves as a reminder that courts expect pleadings to be focused. The EAT found that the tribunal did not make a substantive error of law. Furthermore, the EAT rejected the claimant's separate application for costs, finding that the respondent's conduct during the preparation of the hearing bundle was not unreasonable.
Read the entire judgment here: F v King’s College London [2026] EAT 146
