GFTU Emplaw Emplaw Emplaw

Haldane v Highland Council - Refusal to allow amendment was not perverse in all circumstances: quite the opposite [2009] EAT

Ms Haldane presented a claim of sex discrimination in November 2003; in March 2004 she asked to be allowed to add a claim for victimisation. This question was deferred to a hearing listed for November -postponed at Ms Haldane's request. The matter then remained stayed until 2006, when the sex discrimination claim was settled, but Ms Haldane, having been silent on the subject since 2004, insisted at a Case Management Discussion that she still sought to amend her claim to add victimisation. Grievances were still ongoing, there was a further lack of action until 2007, and by now Ms Haldane was off work sick. In late 2007 an employment judge concluded that there was no good explanation for why Ms Haldane had failed to progress the application to amend for a number of years. There seemed to be no desire on her part to have it dealt with: it could have been included in the 2006 settlement negotiations, there was no indication of when Ms Haldane may be fit again but few details provided of her illness. At this rate, by the time the matter was listed for hearing the alleged acts of victimisation would be nearly 5 years old.

The full content of this page is available to subscribers only. Please purchase a subscription if you feel this content will be of use to you.

Login or subscribe (includes subscription information) to access the full content of this page.