Tribunal Upholds Appeal in Mileham v Zeus Limestone Ltd Over Refusal to Add Respondent
The EAT has upheld an appeal after a judge refused to add a respondent to a claim. The tribunal found inadequate consideration of prejudice to the claimant.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Finds Error in Refusal to Add Respondent
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has allowed an appeal in the case of Mileham v Zeus Limestone Ltd & Ors, overturning an Employment Judge's (EJ) decision to refuse the claimant's application to add Mr. William Edward Doe as a second respondent to his claim. The initial claim involved allegations of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal against Zeus Limestone Ltd, trading as Rovic Tiles.
Background of the Case
Mr. Mileham initially filed his claim in March 2023 against Zeus Limestone Ltd. However, the company subsequently entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation. Following this, Mr Mileham applied to add Mr Doe as a respondent, alleging he had full control over Zeus Limestone Ltd and was responsible for the discriminatory behaviour.
The Employment Judge's Decision
The Employment Judge refused the application, citing that Mr. Mileham could have initially included Mr. Doe in the claim. The EJ also pointed to Mr Mileham's legal representation since September 2023 and his failure to apply to add Mr Doe at a preliminary hearing. The EJ also raised concerns about prejudice to Mr. Doe if added to the claim at a late stage.
EAT's Reasoning for Upholding the Appeal
Judge Keith, presiding over the EAT, found that the Employment Judge had erred in several respects. Firstly, the EJ failed to adequately consider the prejudice to Mr Mileham if the amendment was refused, potentially leaving him without recourse due to Zeus Limestone Ltd's insolvency. The EAT noted that the EJ referred to prejudice to Mr. Doe, despite the lack of representations made by him, and without sufficiently explaining what that prejudice was said to be.
Secondly, the EAT found that the EJ's reasons were not 'Meek' compliant, meaning they did not provide sufficient clarity regarding the prejudice Mr. Doe would suffer beyond simply being named as a party. While the EJ considered the timing of the application, the EAT found criticism of the Appellant's lack of monitoring of the financial viability of the First Respondent unrealistic.
Outcome and Remittal
The EAT set aside the Employment Judge's decision and remitted the application to add Mr. Doe as a party to a different judge for reconsideration. The EAT emphasised that a fact-specific balancing exercise was required to assess the prejudices to both parties fairly.
The case highlights the importance of tribunals considering all relevant factors, including potential hardship to both claimants and respondents, when deciding on applications to amend claims.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr C Mileham v (1) Zeus Limestone Ltd (T/A Rovic Tiles) (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) (2) Mr William Edward Doe [2025] EAT 105
