Vessey v Richmond: Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Amendment Decision
The EAT has dismissed an appeal by Mr. Vessey against a ruling concerning the scope of amendments to his disability discrimination claim against Richmond Photography Ltd.
• public
Employment Tribunal Decision: Vessey v Richmond Photography Ltd
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal by Mr Charles Vessey against a decision made by an Employment Judge (EJ) regarding amendments to his disability discrimination claim against Richmond Photography Limited.
The initial claim, brought by Mr Vessey, included allegations of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. A key point of contention arose concerning the scope of amendments Mr Vessey sought to make to his claim, specifically regarding alleged acts of discrimination during his employment, separate from his dismissal.
The Original Ruling and Appeal
Employment Judge Smith had previously allowed Mr Vessey to amend his claim to include additional complaints of disability discrimination. However, a subsequent case management hearing presided over by Employment Judge Abbott clarified that the allowed amendments were restricted to issues directly surrounding Mr Vessey's dismissal, as articulated in a note prepared by his counsel.
Mr Vessey appealed EJ Smith’s ruling, arguing that the amendments should have encompassed earlier claims of discrimination during his employment, including an incident related to exclusion from a WhatsApp group and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. He contended that the note presented to EJ Smith was merely a summary and did not supersede the details outlined in an earlier email detailing his claims.
The EAT's Findings
Deputy Judge Michael Ford KC, presiding over the EAT hearing, upheld EJ Smith’s original decision. The EAT found that EJ Smith was entitled to conclude that the claims Mr Vessey intended to pursue were those specifically outlined in the counsel's note. The EAT reasoned that the note, while described as a “summary”, differed in significant respects from the earlier email and clearly indicated the scope of the amendments being sought.
The EAT further noted that the note made no mention of claims related to a failure to make reasonable adjustments and explicitly focused the direct discrimination claim on the dismissal itself, not on incidents during employment. This led the EAT to conclude that EJ Smith had acted appropriately in limiting the amendments to the issues presented in the counsel's note.
Implications of the Decision
This case highlights the importance of clarity and precision when amending claims in employment tribunal proceedings. The EAT emphasised that the Employment Judge was entitled to rely on the information presented in the counsel’s note as a clear representation of the claims Mr Vessey wished to pursue at the time of the hearing.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Charles Vessey v Richmond Photography Ltd [2025] EAT 135
