Firefighter's Amendment Appeal Succeeds: Tribunal Erred in Refusing Disability and Sex Discrimination Claim
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an Employment Judge wrongly refused a firefighter's application to amend his claim form, which alleges disability and sex discrimination.
• public
Firefighter Wins Appeal Over Amended Discrimination Claim
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a decision concerning Mr. Paul Thompson's employment claim against Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service. The EAT found that an Employment Judge erred in refusing Mr. Thompson permission to amend his original claim form.
Background: Disciplinary Action and Discrimination Claims
Mr. Thompson, a firefighter since 2001, faced disciplinary proceedings following an allegation of misconduct. He subsequently went on long-term sick leave due to disability-related ill health. His claim form alleged that the disciplinary process was handled in a discriminatory manner, referencing both disability and sex discrimination. He argued that the Fire and Rescue Service failed to adequately consider his disability during the disciplinary proceedings and treated him less favourably than a woman would have been.
The Amendment Dispute
The original claim form, submitted without legal representation, lacked clarity. A series of preliminary hearings followed, eventually leading to a formal application by Mr Thompson, now represented by counsel, to amend the claim. This was intended to clarify the legal basis of his claim, specifically in relation to the Equality Act 2010.
However, Employment Judge Roper refused the application to amend, stating that the claimant had failed to comply with an earlier case management order by not providing a clear, single document outlining the proposed amendments in relation to the original claim. The Judge felt that the claim had already consumed a disproportionate amount of judicial resources.
EAT Ruling: Error in Law
His Honour Judge James Tayler, presiding over the EAT, found that the Employment Judge had erred in law by treating the perceived non-compliance with the previous order as the determining factor, without properly considering the balance of justice as required by established case law (Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore). Judge Tayler stated that the task of considering the amendment application was not as challenging as the respondent asserted and the Employment Judge accepted.
The EAT determined that the case should be remitted back to the Employment Tribunal for a fresh hearing before a different judge.
Appearance of Bias Rejected
Although the appeal was allowed based on the error of law, the EAT rejected Mr. Thompson's assertion that the Employment Judge’s comments gave the appearance of bias. Judge Tayler acknowledged the use of "robust language" but stated that this did not create an appearance of bias in this case.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Paul Thompson v Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service [2025] EAT 59
