GFTU Emplaw Emplaw Emplaw

Moore v Marks & Spencer Plc - No error in refusal to allow out-of-time amendment [2010] EAT

Albeit an employment judge had not expressly said so, it was implicit in her refusal to allow an out-of-time amendment that she had fully considered the submissions of both sides.

Ms Moore was dismissed - as redundant, said Marks & Spencer ("M&S"). She presented an ET1 claim for to the employment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal. This claim made no reference whatsoever to discrimination, but Ms Moore was on maternity leave when dismissed. She changed solicitors, and subsequently applied to the tribunal to amend her claim to add allegations of sex discrimination, as well as claims of dismissal and detriment short of dismissal based on sex, and based on maternity, contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996 secs 99 & 47C. Although the application was to amend, it was set out in the form of a second ET1. M&S objected to the amendment being allowed.

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.