Tribunal Error: Security Officer's Claim Reinstated After Amendment Mishandling
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an Employment Tribunal made errors in its handling of Jerzy Lawrynowicz's claim against Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd, particularly regarding proposed amendments to his case.
• public
Security Officer's Case Revived After Appeal Tribunal Finds Errors
A security officer's legal battle against Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd has been given new life after the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned a previous Employment Tribunal (ET) decision. The case, Lawrynowicz v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd, centred around claims brought by Jerzy Lawrynowicz, a former security officer (team leader) at a Tesco store in Inverness. He was employed from November 2017 until 5 July 2020.
Mr. Lawrynowicz initially filed claims for personal injury, lost wages, and unpaid income tax. He then sought to amend these claims, leading to what the ET described as "a long and complicated history".
Errors in Amendment Handling
The EAT, led by The Honourable Lord Colbeck, found that the ET had erred in several key areas. Firstly, the ET failed to properly apply a previous EAT decision regarding the characterisation of Mr Lawrynowicz's proposed amendments. The EAT had previously acknowledged that the amendments sought to amplify existing claims, rather than introduce entirely new ones. However, the ET incorrectly determined that the amendments introduced new causes of action.
Secondly, the EAT criticised the ET's consideration of factors such as delay and witness availability. The EAT noted that a significant portion of the delay was due to Mr. Lawrynowicz's successful appeal to the EAT against an earlier unfavourable decision. Furthermore, the ET based its assessment of witness availability on an unsubstantiated assertion by the respondent's counsel, rather than on concrete evidence.
Strike-Out Decision Flawed
The EAT also found fault with the ET's decision to strike out the claim. The ET failed to adequately consider whether Mr. Lawrynowicz's conduct constituted a deliberate disregard of procedural steps. Additionally, the EAT highlighted the inconsistency in the ET's position, where it indicated that further specification of the claims would be required if the amendment had been allowed, yet it simultaneously considered striking out the claim without affording Mr. Lawrynowicz the opportunity to provide that further specification.
Case Remitted Back to Tribunal
As a result of these errors, the EAT allowed the appeal and set aside the ET's orders. To avoid further delays, the EAT exercised its powers to determine the application to amend and ordered that the amendment should be allowed. The case has now been remitted back to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal to consider the remaining issues, including time limits, and for further hearing.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to established legal principles and ensuring fairness and due process in Employment Tribunal proceedings. It highlights the potential for appeals when tribunals fail to properly consider relevant factors and previous rulings.
Read the entire judgement here: Jerzy Lawrynowicz v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd [2025] EAT 177
